Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

RUGBY CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the 'Third time

LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Government Expenditure (Economy Measures)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what Departments the proposed economies of £100 million will be made.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 24th April to the hon. Members for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and Workington (Mr. Peart).

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I do not think very much of that Answer. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate idea of how much of this cut is coming from the defence programme and how much from other sources? Is he aware that if only the Chancellor would come down from his lofty plateau, he would be able to cut £200 or £300 million from the defence programme alone?

Mr. Brooke: It was, in fact, a very good reply. That is why I am repeating it this afternoon.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly two months
of the financial year have gone, and that if this sum is to be realised as a genuine reduction in national expenditure and not simply the conventional underspending on defence, it is about time that the Chancellor informed the House what he has in mind?

Mr. Brooke: It certainly is to be realised, and my right hon. Friend will choose his own time for announcing it.

Junior Ministers (Salaries)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the date on which the salary of a junior Minister was raised to its present level; and what the present purchasing value of this salary is compared with the date on which it was introduced.

Mr. H. Brooke: A salary of £1,500 for Parliamentary Secretaries generally was first prescribed by Statute in 1937, though it applied earlier in many cases. In 1946 Parliamentary Secretaries in the House of Commons became entitled to draw in addition half the Parliamentary salary —that is, £500. In terms of purchasing power £1,500 today is equivalent to £560 in 1937, and £2,000 today is equivalent to £1,284 in 1946.

Mr. Lewis: Are not these figures a shocking example of how junior Ministers, like many other Ministers and Parliamentarians, are underpaid? Does the Financial Secretary recall the statement made in the House by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer that this matter would be dealt with, and his promise that he would deal with this admitted anomaly? When will that be done and when will the promise be implemented; or is it simply another of the promises that we keep getting from the Government but which they have no intention of carrying out?

Mr. Brooke: If I answer many more questions on this matter, I shall have to declare my interest. I should in any case have difficulty in answering the hon. Member's specific question without anticipating the Answer to Question No. 10.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it the case that a number of Members of the party opposite have felt that they had to decline office because of the inadequacy of the pay? If so, is that not a serious consideration which should be taken into account?

Mr. Brooke: I know nothing of all that.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. The Minister did not attempt to answer my question as to when the Government would implement their promise. Can I have an answer?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that necessarily arises.

University Grants

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is spent annually on fundamental scientific research by the University Grants Committee; and the total sum allocated to it each year.

Mr. H. Brooke: Recurrent grants made to universities on the recommendation of the University Grants Committee are block grants towards their maintenance as centres of advanced education and research. Part is spent on fundamental research, but grants are not normally earmarked for specific purposes, and research expenditure therefore is not separately distinguishable.
The provision for recurrent grant for the quinquennium 1952–57, as announced in February, 1952, rose from £20 million in 1952–53 to £25 million in 1956–57. Since that announcement, additional moneys have been provided for increases in academic salaries and for the expansion of technology.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Financial Secretary think that we really ought to know a little more about how much is spent upon fundamental scientific research in the universities? Is he aware that there is an estimate that the amount is about £5 million, and that there is a growing feeling that it is inadequate to our needs?

Mr. Brooke: I am anxious not to embark upon a policy of Government earmarking of these sums. It is far better to leave the matter to the discretion of the universities. That is why I am not able to give a precise answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question.

Mr. Callaghan: Would it not be worth the country's while if the Financial Secretary asked the universities how much is being spent upon this very important

matter? If he thought it was insufficient, would there not be a case for him to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for an increase in the total amount?

Mr. Brooke: As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, the arrangements for the next quinquennium will be the right moment to decide what future grants should be.

Cost of Living

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the £1 depreciated in purchasing power by Is. 6d. during the last year; and what action he proposes to take to restore the pound's purchasing value back to what it was in October, 1951.

Mr. Hale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that on the basis of the old cost-of-living scale of 1947 the cost of living has advanced by eight points during the first four months of the year; and whether he is now in a position to announce the Government's proposals for preventing any further increase.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the concern created by the latest official announcement that the cost-of-living index has again risen to a record high level with a two points increase in a month; what consideration has been given to the matter by the Government; and what action is to be taken to halt this upward trend.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): First, I must correct an error in the first part of Question No. 6. On the old basis, with June, 1947, equalling 100, the Retail Prices Index rose between December, 1955, and April, 1956, not by eight points but by four points. For the rest, I would refer the hon. Members to the speech made at Newcastle last Friday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but surely we have been hearing this story for the last five years, and not only last week. Is the Minister aware that every action the Government have taken over the last five years has been responsible for depreciating the purchasing value of the £? If


that is the case—and it is the case— should we not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter his policy completely and to go back to what was in operation before, so that we can have a £ which is really worth something?

Sir E. Boyle: It certainly is not the case. For example, the rates of Purchase Tax, despite the last Budget statement, are still lower than they were when we took office.

Mr. Hale: Is not the Minister aware that we are facing a very grave financial crisis, that the Plimsoll line is now beneath the water, and that every measure the Government have taken up to now has been calculated to increase prices? In the circumstances, why do they not resign?

Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very happy on this side of the House in taking all the necessary steps to put the position right. If he will read the speech of last Friday, he will find that my right hon. Friend did not in any way mitigate the serious features of the present situation.

Mr. D. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), who asked Question No. 5, is asking for the most drastic policy of deflation?

Mr. Jay: For the statistical enlightenment of the House, will the Economic Secretary say whether the rise of two or three points in the index, with which the Chanccllor of the Exchequer threatened us two days ago, is additional to the rise of three points which we have had already this year, and whether a rise of six points every six months in the cost of living is the Chancellor's definition of a plateau?

Sir E. Boyle: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the ominous situation, does the Economic Secretary really thing that the speech at Newcastle, with its exhortations about holding the line, will do the trick? Will not the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do something before we drift into disaster, which will mean another round of wage increases and a shooting up of the cost of living?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not think that I can add anything to the Newcastle speech,

which answered the points which the hon. Gentleman has raised. There will be another speech reported this afternoon.

Mr. Gower: Were not the decisions of the Chancellor to reduce Government expenditure, to tax profits, and to give a fillip to the Savings Movement not all steps in the right direction?

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the hon. Member state whether it is or is not a fact, as suggested in certain papers, that the rise in the old Index in the first four months of this year is greater than in any comparable period since 1948? Will he not now answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) whether a rise of this magnitude fits in with the Chancellor's definition of stability, as stated in his Newcastle speech?

Sir E. Boyle: The first part of that question does not arise out of what is on the Order Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman will put it down, I will certainly answer it and give the House the facts. I cannot add to what I have said in answer to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

Dividend Payment (Restraint)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is still the policy of the Government that restraint should be exercised by industry in the payment of increased dividends.

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Jay: can the Economic Secretary say whether it is the policy of the Government that there should be restraint in dividends? Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Newcastle speech— according to both The Times and the Manchester Guardian reports—said a great deal about wage restraint, he said nothing whatever about dividend restraint.

Sir E. Boyle: The fact that Profits Tax on distributed profits has been increased by 7½ per cent., an increase of 33⅓ per cent. over previous rates, is a clear sign of the attitude of the Government to the greater distribution of dividends at the present time.

Mr. Jay: Why did the Chancellor, in this much advertised and lengthy speech, say nothing about dividend restraint at all, when even the Prime Minister said


something about it at Perth? Will the Economic Secretary tell us why the Chancellor of the Exchequer left it out?

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend said a very great deal about the excess of home demand. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we on this side of the House have always said that increased dividends may imply increased consumption. There is no change here.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that when advice of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is heeded it results very often in such a situation of economic falsity in an industry or a company as to constitute a standing invitation to Mr. Clore to come in and put it right?

Life Assurance Benefits (Friendly Societies)

Mr. R. Bell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation to raise the maximum limit of £500 on life assurance benefits imposed on friendly societies.

Mr. H. Brooke: No Sir, I am not satisfied that there is a case for raising this limit.

Mr. Bell: Would not such an increase to encourage savings be entirely consonant with the policy of the Chancellor in his Budget statement?

Mr. Brooke: I explained during the Second Reading of the Friendly Societies Bill this Session why the Government were not proposing any increase in tax exemption on friendly societies or any withdrawal of their existing facilities. So far as I can remember, in the rest of the passage of the Bill, no hon. Member on either side pursued the point further.

Personal Incomes

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government's appeal for restraint in wage and salary claims applies equally to those with incomes at all levels.

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Jay: Is the Economic Secretary aware that last Friday at West Hartlepool the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said that the strongest possible support would be given by the Government to arrest any wage increases unless

they were coupled with increased productivity, and that at the same time the Chancellor would do his best to increase the incentives of those who earned salaries in what is called the Surtax range? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is the policy of the Government that there should be a wage freeze for one section of the community and increased incentives for another?

Sir E. Boyle: I really cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's next Budget statement next year. I should have thought that a surplus of £460 million would be austere enough for anyone.

Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman at least tell us whether junior Ministers come into that part of the community which is to have a freeze or in the part which is to have incentives?

Sir E. Boyle: It would be indelicate for me to answer that question.

Captain Pilkington: Has not the Government repeatedly made it clear that we must have restraint all round, and is it not very unfortunate that hon. Members opposite should try to make these continual party points?

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the very grave position devcloping in sterling this week, will the hon. Gentleman say why he is so confident that the Chancellor's next Budget statement will not be until next year? Secondly, will he say why it is that the Chancellor, in the muchvaunted Newcastle speech to which the hon. Gentleman has referred so often this afternoon, has given the impression to the country that the Government have shuffled off all responsibility for any of these questions, and are putting the matter into the hands of the unions, and indeed only one side of industry?

Sir E. Boyle: That is certainly not the impression that the country got from my right hon. Friend's Newcastle speech, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that quite well.

Government Offices (Modern Cleaning Apparatus)

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Secretary to the Treasury what recent steps he has taken to obtain agreement for the use of modern cleaning devices in Government offices.

Mr. H. Brooke: The cleaning of Government offices is in fact the responsibility of the individual Departments; but the Treasury is keen to promote maximum efficiency. In 1954 and in 1955 the Treasury asked Departments to consider with their Staff Sides various methods of achieving this, including greater use of modern cleaning apparatus.

Mr. Thompson: Can my right hon. Friend say what answer the Treasury got to the appeal which it made to the Departments?

Mr. Brooke: Well, we received various answers from various quarters. If our 1954 appeal had been wholly successful it might not have been necessary to repeat it so soon.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Leather: asked the Secretary to the Treasury why overseas buyers are charged Purchase Tax on their own order forms, printed and purchased in their own countries, and used for the sole purpose of placing their own orders with British exporters.

Mr. H. Brooke: Under the law these order books are liable to Purchase Tax as stationery, whether they are made here or imported. It would be quite wrong to make arbitrary exceptions in particular cases of this kind.

Mr. Leather: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it really is a lunacy that a man is allowed to bring a form into the country in his pocket and nobody says a word, but that if it happens to come in a day or two later in an envelope he is forced to pay Purchase Tax on it? Is my right hon. Friend aware that these are just the kind of legal lunacies which, as I have informed my right hon. Friend, persuade buyers to go to the Continent, where they are not subject to this kind of nonsense?

Mr. Brooke: This Question arises out of an unusual case about which my hon Friend and I have been in correspondence. My hon. Friend either wishes the tax law to be made so complicated as to provide for every conceivable situation, or else he wishes Customs officers to he given discretion to disregard the law when they think that imported items of cargo should be admitted free. The first
proposal would be impossible, and I suggest that the second would be thoroughly undesirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Personal Case

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what compensation he has offered to Mr. Davidson, High Trees, Swanbridge, Glamorgan, for the treatment he has received from the county agricultural committee; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): I can see no justification for the payment of compensation to Mr. Davidson since I am satisfied that he received full and fair consideration in his treatment by the Glamorgan Agricultural Executive Committee.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the fact that this matter has been raised both by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), in whose constituency this man lives, and by myself, and in view of the wide public interest in the man's serious allegation of unjust treatment, will the Minister, if he will not make an allowance to Mr. Davidson, at least hold a public inquiry in order that the good name of his Department may be cleared? It is quite wrong to leave matters as they are.

Mr. Amory: Personally, after going through the case, I am entirely convinced that there is no substance in Mr. Davidson's allegations. But I am anxious that the hon. Member should be as convinced of that as I am, and if it would help him I should be delighted to have a talk with him about the case, and go through it with him in detail.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Davidson alleges that incorrect information and documents have been placed before my right hon. Friend by certain officials? Is he further aware that Mr. Davidson is quite convinced that documents upon which Mr. Davidson's signature has been forged have, in fact, been put before my right hon. Friend and his predecessor, and will he consider that?

Mr. Amory: I have considered all the allegations made by Mr. Davidson that are known to me, with the result that I have announced. I will look again into the case in the light of what my hon. Friend has just said.

White Fish Subsidy Scheme

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the new White Fish Subsidy Scheme, due to operate from 1st August.

Mr. Amory: Discussions are taking place with the representatives of the trawler owners and with the White Fish Authority with a view to a new White Fish Subsidy Scheme being laid before the House in July.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will the Minister bear in mind that since he met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry the price of coal has risen again, and that this will have an important bearing on any subsidy for steam vessels, if we are to keep them at sea?

Mr. Amory: Yes. I am aware of that fact. That, of course, is one of the matters which I shall be taking into consideration in the review which is now being made.

Mr. Edward Evans: Can the Minister say whether it is still the policy of the Government to go on with the tapering policy until the subsidy eventually tapers right off?

Mr. Amory: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until this current review has been carried out, when I shall be making a pretty full statement to the House.

Staff (Photographers and Photoprinters)

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the staff of photographers and photoprinters in the Organisation and Establishment Department of his Department is being increased from twenty-four to thirty-three.

Mr. Amory: The number has in fact been reduced by eight. The apparent increase shown in the estimates for 1956–57 is due to the inclusion in the photographic

and photoprinting table of a number of posts formerly included under a general heading.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: But would my right hon. Friend say why he needs this enormous staff?

Mr. Amory: I am satisfied that this staff is an economy to the Department. Its work covers not only the reproduction of photographs, maps and documents for my technical services—including the National Agricultural Advisory Service—but also a great deal of duplication and printing of forms, statements and pamphlets, which saves a good deal of the expenditure which would be incurred if all that work had to be placed outside. It is the kind of thing that I keep under constant review.

Mr. Hale: Will the new equipment include cameras with such rapid shutters that instantaneous photographs can be taken of the prices of agricultural food going up?

Potatoes

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that, although there are substantial stocks of potatoes in the country which are rapidly becoming unsaleable and importers have sustained losses totalling £4 million, the prices charged to housewives are still abnormally high; and if he will now reintroduce price control.

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that there is now no shortage of potatoes but that prices are still too high; and whether he will now institute price-control to protect housewives from profiteering.

Mr. Amory: Retail prices have fallen considerably in recent weeks, and I can see no justification for Government intervention.

Mr. Collins: As potatoes are being sold in the market at a 1d. or 2d. a pound, does the Minister think it right that they should still be sold at 5d. in the shop? If he will not agree to price control, will he say what he will do to ensure a reasonable relationship between the prices paid to producers and those paid by consumers? Further, can he say whether he has told his colleagues who are responsible for school canteens, Army canteens


and meals in prisons that it is no longer necessary to curtail the consumption of potatoes?

Mr. Amory: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can say that, from such information as I have, potatoes are readily available in the shops at present at prices of between 3d. or less and 5d. a pound. depending on quality. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He seems to be as indignant now when prices are coming down as he was when they were going up.

Mrs. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that while I was doing my shopping this morning in central London it was impossible to find even the poorest quality oldcrop potatoes at less than 4d. a pound? Is he further aware that quite a number of housewives agreed. yet we find that the Chairman of the Importers Standing Commission of the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades has stated to the Press that housewives should be able to buy all the potatoes they need at prices of not more than 3d. a pound? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the housewives want to know what action he intends to take?

Mr. Amory: This is not the first time that I have had to complain that hon. Ladies opposite seem to me to be uncommonly poor shoppers. The information I have is that on 28th May, which is only three days ago, potatoes were available in more than half the shops visited by several people whom I asked to make a tour, at 3d. a pound or less. I really must ask the hon. Lady to devote more attention and skill to this business of shopping.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the Minister aware that my experience is precisely the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger)? Could he now state in what shop in St. Pancras, in which district my hon. Friend and I do our shopping, we could get potatoes at the price which he quotes?

Mr. Amory: What the right hon. Lady says reinforces what I said about right hon. and hon. Ladies opposite. It takes a bachelor like myself to find a real bargain.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the "substantial stocks of

potatoes" referred to in Question No. 17 are very largely Dutch imported stocks out of cold store which are practically uneatable? If the hon. Lady will be prepared to buy some of those she will be able to get them a great deal cheaper than at 10d. a pound.

Several Hon. Members: >rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is quite enough about potatoes. There is another potato Question to come.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the inadequate and inaccurate nature of the information furnished to him by the Potato Marketing Board regarding potato stocks and the consequences ensuing, he will now strengthen the board by the inclusion of representatives of distributors and consumers.

Mr. Amory: I do not accept the hon. Member's description of the information provided by the Potato Marketing Board, and I see no reason to pursue his suggestion for appointing additional members to represent particular interests.

Mr. Collins: If the Minister's information from the Potato Marketing. Board was not inaccurate, why did he create in this House, by his own statements in answer to Questions, an impression of a non-existent shortage? Is it not the case that he did not know what the stocks were? Is not recent potato history proof that we cannot depend on a producers' board to give a completely satisfactory service to consumers?

Mr. Amory: I have every reason to believe that the information provided to me by the Potato Marketing Board, and which I passed on to the House, was as accurate as it was possible to obtain at that time. The only action that the Government have taken in this matter was to permit imports from last December. When I gave that information, the price of potatoes was 6d. per pound, which indicated the facts of the situation, namely, that there was then a severe shortage. Since that time the high price has called forward additional supplies, and consumer resistance has led to consumption going down, with the result that there are plenty of potatoes available at the moment.

Mr. Wiley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his mistaken action and failure to take the right action has had the extraordinary result of causing excessive prices to the consumer and serious losses to the trader? Will he institute an immediate inquiry to ensure that we do not have a repetition of this stupidity next year?

Mr. Amory: I am perfectly satisfied that what has happened has brought prices down more quickly than any other action would have done. While saying that, I am sorry for the traders concerned who, through misjudging the commercial situation, have incurred losses. It emphasises that the middleman, in the course of the service which he renders to the consumer, often has to take considerable financial risks.

Mr. Maude: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no more certain method of ensuring another potato shortage next year than by following the Opposition's advice and introducing price control this year?

Price Review

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the total award in the recent Price Review was agreed by the three United Kingdom farmers' unions.

Mr. Amory: The statement on the Price Review which I made to the House on 15th March contained the phrase.
in the prevailing circumstances they
—that is the farmers' unions—
would not have wished to dissent from the total increase in the guarantees..."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 563.]
but went on to make it clear that they felt unable to agree to the price determinations or to the changes to be made in the fatstock guarantee system. This statement was agreed verbatim with the leader of the representatives of the three farmers' unions.
Sir James Turner has told me that he did not and does not dispute the explanation which I gave to the House on 30th April that, in order to secure the Government's acceptance of the farmers' unions' schedule of price changes, they would, in all the circumstances, have been prepared
to accept a total increase in the guarantees of £25¼ million, and that any statements issued recently by the unions do not call my explanation of 30th April in question.

Mr. du Cann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the representatives of the National Farmers' Union are stating publicly that the total award is not agreed? Is it a fact that during the discussions the farmers' unions issued a schedule of prices totalling £25¼ million which they said they were prepared to accept, and will my right hon. Friend consider perhaps issuing an agreed communique after the next Price Review in order to avoid unhappy situations of this sort?

Mr. Amory: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree from what I have said that it is clear that the farmers' unions put forward price changes which would have made a total of £25¼ million acceptable to them. They were understandably not prepared to agree to a global figure in isolation from a schedule of prices changes.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this Price Review result had been announced five weeks earlier, the hon. Gentleman who has put this Question would not be here?

Mr. Amory: Not for the first time, I must beg to differ from the view of the right hon. Gentleman.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement which he has just made will come as a profound shock to farmers all over the country? is he further aware that the National Farmers' Union has denied that it agreed to the total award? Therefore, is there not some misunderstanding somewhere, and could my right hon. Friend make a statement over the radio so that all farmers know what they do not know already, which is the truth?

Mr. Amory: These matters are complicated, and it is very easy for misunderstandings over the interpretation of words to arise through no one's fault, but I am quite sure that the explanation that I have given today will ensure that there is no further misunderstanding about what happened at this Annual Price Review.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Railways

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the shortage of labour in the South-Western Region of our railways, particularly among signalmen and firemen; and if he will take steps to raise the calling-up age in this service by one year in order to ease the employment situation.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am aware that labour is short in these grades, and I am watching the position in the light of representations I have received from both sides of the industry on the subject.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that quite recently action was taken against the British Transport Commission for employing young men on night work because other labour was not available? If the age is increased to 19 years for call-up, will it not help the position, although I agree that it will not remove the difficulty entirely? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider raising the age to 19?

Mr. Macleod: The first point formed the basis of some of the representations which I have received from the National Union of Railwaymen and the British Transport Commission, and to which I have not yet replied. I am aware of that particular difficulty, and also that it occurred in the hon. Gentleman's area, but, amongst other things, it probably needs legislation to put it right.

Training Centres (Posters and Leaflets)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make available for inspection the file copies of all posters and leaflets and other public literature, issued by his Department prior to the late war, in connection with training at Government vocational training centres.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Specimen copies of certain of the posters and leaflets issued before the last war by my Department in connection with training at Government training centres are still in existence, and I will make arrangements for my hon. Friend to see them if he wishes.

Dr. Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and I hope that this

will serve to clear up the differences of opinion on this propaganda, in which the good faith of his Department is involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Industrial Workers (Call-up)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that certain industrial workers will be required to follow their own occupation in the event of a national emergency; that National Service training is, therefore, of no advantage to them, or to the nation; and if, in order to save the cost of training such men under the National Service and obtain the benefit of two years of productivity in industries which are short of labour, he will introduce legislation to exempt them from the National Service scheme.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I would remind the hon. Member that the main purpose of National Service today is to enable the Forces to meet current commitments and no longer primarily to build up a reserve of trained men who would be available in war. I could not, therefore, accept a suggestion based on these grounds.

Mr. Awbery: Is it not a terrible economic waste and a folly to take men from their jobs and train them for a task that they will never be called upon to perform? Will the right hon. Gentleman, as a first step to doing away with conscription, deal with the industries in which the men will be called upon to remain instead of going into the Army?

Mr. Macleod: I dealt with that very point in my reply to the main Question. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to paragraph 3 of the White Paper on National Service published last October, he will find these words:
It is no longer primarily a question of training men who would be available in war.
Therefore, the premises on which the hon. Gentleman bases his Question are unsound.

Mr. Callaghan: To which war is the Minister referring? Does he not know that a cut in National Service is long overdue?

COST OF LIVING

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour the percentage rise in the cost of living since June, 1954.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As measured by the Retail Prices Index, the average level of retail prices rose by nearly 11 per cent. between June, 1954, and April, 1956.

Mr. Lewis: Could the Minister give some explanation why this rise has taken place? In view of the fact that we have had promises over the last six years that the Government were going to reduce the cost of living and bring down this Index, can he explain further why some positive action has not been taken? We have had two Chancellors of the Exchequer, both of them saying they were going to deal with this problem, and both of them have made it worse. May we ask the Minister of Labour whether he will do something about it?

Mr. Macleod: That is a very easy subject to deal with. The hon. Member is, of course, leaving out the rest of the story, the major part of which is that as against 11 per cent., taking exactly the same months, there has been a nearly 15 per cent. increase in wage rates.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the cost of living index rose 11 per cent. in the last single year of Labour rule? Is it not equally true that since that time the wages index has risen far more than the cost of living?

Mr. Macleod: I can assure my hon. Friend that the cost-of-living figures which he gave are much too favourable to the Labour Government. The Index rose substantially more than that.

Mr. G. Brown: Coming to more modern history, did the Minister, when he worked out these figures, take into account the potatoes that nobody can find at the price the Minister of Agriculture alone can find them?

Mr. Speaker: I thought we had got off potatoes.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Labour by how many points the cost-ofliving index has increased this year up to

the latest convenient date; and how this compares with similar periods in 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955.

Mr. bin Macleod: Taking the level of prices in June, 1947 as 100, the Retail Prices Index rose by five points between January and April of this year. In the corresponding periods in 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955 the numbers of points by which the Index rose were three, three, two and one, respectively.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman really not ashamed to make a declaration that in 1956 the cost of living has gone up during that period faster than it has since 1951, when promises were given to stabilise prices and bring them down? In view of the fact that world prices have been reduced or at least stabilised, what has gone wrong? Were those promises made only to win the Election? How can the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Labour, expect to get tranquillity in industry?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is becoming a debate.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: On a point of order. I wonder if you could give some guidance, Mr. Speaker. I understood that one could not have Questions put on the Order Paper if in fact the information was available in normal Government publications. This information is all included in a publication which is available in every single room in the Library. Why do hon. Members put these sort of Questions down?

Mr. Speaker: It is true that Questions Are inadmissible if the information which they ask for is readily available; but sometimes a Question is put in such a way that the precise figure asked for does not appear in the publications. I would not be prepared to say whether that is the case here, but I will look into it.

Mr. Dodds: Further to that point of order. For the education of the hon. Member, would he take note that the Question says, "up to the latest convenient date "? That means for this month, the figures for which are known by the Minister but not yet published.

Mr. Speaker: That may be the explanation.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Liverpool Prison

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a prisoner named Beck, at present in Walton Prison, Liverpool, wrote a letter complaining of ill-treatment in the prison, to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool; that this letter has not reached the hon. Member; what has happened to it; where it is now; and if he will take steps to have the letter delivered.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): There is no prisoner named Beck at Her Majesty's Prison, Liverpool. There is a prisoner Back, but he has not applied for a letter to write to a Member of Parliament.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that the man whose name is the nearest approach to the name in my Question on the Order Paper has had a pretty tough time arising from my Question'? Is he further aware that I have learned it is very wrong to put the name of the person on the Order Paper, particularly when he is confined in one of Her Majesty's prisons? Is the hon. Gentleman aware also that I do know that a letter was written to me by a prisoner in Walton Prison, which has never been delivered, and I want to know what has happened to it?

Mr. Deedes: The Back petition is under consideration; but it makes no mention of any attempt to stop him sending a letter to a Member of Parliament.

Mrs. Braddock: I did not make any accusation of that sort of all in my Question. Really, the authorities have no right to approach Back at all. Why did they approach Back when they found there was not a Beck in the place? Is it the situation that anybody whose name approaches anything like this man's name is to be interrogated in the way in which prisoners are interrogated at Walton Prison?

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Lady put down a Question giving a name which was not on the register of the prison. The only thing which could be done was to find a prisoner with the nearest name, to whom she was most likely to be referring.

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that on 25th April eight or ten prisoners at present in Walton Prison, Liverpool, all men of good prison record, desired to present a petition to him protesting against the ill-treatment of prisoners in H.1 Block at the prison; that each of the petitioners was interviewed separately and threatened with disciplinary action; whether the petition has reached his Department or where it now is; and if he will have an inquiry made immediately.

Mr. Deedes: On 30th April the Governor of Liverpool Prison sent to the Home Office nine petitions from prisoners who complained of shouts and noises in the punishment cells which were, they suggested, caused by prisoners being ill-treated by officers. In accordance with standing instructions, the Governor warned each prisoner who applied for a petition that any allegations made against prison officers would be fully investigated and if they were shown to be unfounded he might be reported to the Visiting Committee for the offence of making a false and malicious charge against an officer.
These petitions have now been considered, but my right hon. and gallant Friend has deferred a reply until he has had time to consider further material which the hon. Member has since sent to him.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Joint UnderSecretary aware that these petitions came to him following comments made with reference to allegations at the prison? Does he understand that I am very anxious indeed that there should be a complete inquiry into this matter, but that the position has been that prisoners have been unable to find any way of making representations about the terrible screams and noises which go on in the punishment block, not only on one day but on various days during the week? Is he aware also that I have sent to him, from prisoners who have been released from prison, letters saying that they are prepared to make public statements about what is going on in Walton Prison, and does he not consider that it is in the interests of the public, of the prisoners and of the warders that a complete and full public inquiry should be made into these allegations?

Mr. Deedes: In answer to the first allegations which the hon. Lady sent to my right hon. and gallant Friend, he sent her a very long letter, which she will have received. She then sent further evidence, and it is that evidence which my right hon. and gallant Friend is now examining. He does not wish to make a statement until it has been thoroughly investigated.

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that because no legitimate methods were available for complaints regarding ill-treatment of prisoners at Walton Prison, Liverpool, to be made, a letter was smuggled from the prison and delivered by hand to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool; that the state of affairs at this prison indicates that an immediate inquiry is necessary; and if he will have an inquiry made at once.

Mr. Deedes: My right hon. and gallant Friend naturally accepts the word of the hon. Member that a letter was smuggled out to her, but he does not accept that this was done because there are no legitimate methods of complaint. All prisoners may make complaints to the Governor, to the Visiting Committee, or to a visiting commissioner or assistant commissioner. They may petition the Secretary of State, and, subject to conditions of which the House is aware, they may write to a Member of Parliament. My right hon. and gallant Friend has considered certain petitions from prisoners in Liverpool Prison, but he is deferring his reply until he has considered further material supplied to him since by the hon. Member.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Joint UnderSecretary aware that I offered the Home Office the opportunity of seeing the letter which was smuggled out, which I have in my hand, but that I have now withdrawn that offer in view of what happened to Beck? Is he aware that the prison authorities may be able to trace the handwriting, and that I am not prepared to take the responsibility for what might happen to a prisoner in Walton Prison if the handwriting of this letter given to me is able to be traced? Is he further aware that unless something is done about this matter, there will be some very grave happenings inside Walton Prison at Liverpool? Is he further aware that I am not the only Member of Parliament

who has received these communications, and that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) has had a letter from Walton Prison in similar terms? Will he see something is done about it immediately?

Mr Deedes: I hope that what I have already said has indicated to the hon. Lady, and to the House, that my right hon. and gallant Friend is as concerned as she is by the allegations, that he is taking note of the letters which she has sent, and that when he has completed the investigation, he will make a statement.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. May I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that on occasions like this, when serious allegations are put on the Order Paper in the form of Questions, it might be more appropriate if the Secretary of State himself appeared at the Despatch Box to answer those Questions, without disrespect—

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order for me in that.

Shops Acts

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a decision given in the Queen's Bench Division, that kippers may be sold on Sunday on the ground that they may conceivably he eaten in the raw state and, on this ground, come within the category of meals and refreshments; and, in view of this and other anomalies, whether he will now undertake to introduce legislation at an early date to amend and consolidate the Shops Acts.

Mr. Deedes: My right hon. and gallant Friend has studied a report of the case. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 10th May to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler).

Mr. Dodds: Has the hon. Gentleman ever eaten a raw kipper? Does he know anyone who has done so? If not, is not the present position a stupid state of affairs? Could not something be done to bring the law into a proper state?

Mr. Deedes: My right hon. and gallant Friend agrees that the law on the closing


hours of shops does stand in need of amendment; it is simply a question of finding Parliamentary time.

Cypriots (Police Interviews and Searches)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why a number of Cypriots including two priests were interrogated by officers of the Metropolitan Police on 9th and 10th May; if he is aware that premises were searched and documents removed without a search warrant being produced; and what steps he proposes to take.

Mr. Deedes: A number of Cypriots were interviewed by police officers in the course of inquiries on 9th and 10th May. My right hon. and gallant Friend is informed that such searching as took place was done with the consent of the persons interviewed, and in one case some documents were taken away for examination with the approval of the owner. No action on my right hon. and gallant Friend's part is called for.

Mr. Robinson: Whilst acknowledging that the police behaved quite courteously in these interrogations, may I ask the Joint Under-Secretary to say what necessity justified the interrogation of British subjects who have lived in this country for twenty years and never come into conflict with the law, and who were asked such questions as how many firearms they possessed?

Mr. Deedes: I cannot give the reasons for action taken by the police in the execution of their duty. As the hon. Member has conceded, the police acted properly in the performance of their duty.

Reception Centres (Children)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instruction or advice he has given to local authorities as to the provision of special reception centres for the detention of children under the age of 12 years who are remanded in custody under Section 3 of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act, 1952.

Mr. Deedes: Local authorities were asked in September, 1952, to make reception centres, as these were provided, available as special reception centres. In view

of the decreasing demand for these facilities my right hon. and gallant Friend would not feel justified in recommending further action to local authorities at present.

Mr. Hastings: Does not the Joint Under-Secretary realise how undesirable it is that children under 12 who get into trouble through lack of parental control should be housed with young toughs, whom they inevitably regard as heroes and tend to copy? Could he not do something to get this anomaly dealt with?

Mr. Deedes: The use of special reception centres has not been extensive, and they do use staff which in our view could be better used elsewhere.

Remand Homes (Children)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children and young persons were detained in remand homes at the nearest convenient date; and how many of these were under 12 years of age.

Mr. Deedes: During the last six months of 1955, the average daily number of children and young persons detained in local authority remand homes was 630. I regret that information about the number under the age of 12 is not available.

Mr. Hastings: Ought not that number to be available? Does the hon. Gentleman know that I happen to be chairman of a remand home under the direction of the Home Office and that in the home about a quarter to a third of the inmates are children under 12? Is not this an important matter which ought to have constant control and supervision?

Mr. Deedes: I think it is under constant control and supervision, but most of these remand homes, as the hon. Member knows, are very small. They are small units with twenty, or not many more than twenty, children in them. Often it is not practicable to provide separate acommodation for the younger children. Care is,of course, taken about the segregation of the older children.

Road Accidents (Drivers' Hours of Duty)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the case of road accidents


involving transport vehicles, he will take steps to bring to the notice of the police the advisability of verifying the number of hours the driver was driving during the day of the accident, with a view to preventing further accidents, where these can be avoided, by restricting driving hours to those permitted by law.

Mr. Deedes: It is the normal practice of the police to make such inquiries when investigating accidents involving transport vehicles.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Home Secretary prepared to see that figures are published stating how many accidents are due to this type of over-driving? The trade union movement has been complaining recently about drivers sleeping whilst driving on the roads and causing great danger to drivers of other vehicles.

Mr. Deedes: What is usually done when police get particulars of such cases is that those particulars are referred to the licensing authority.

"Royal Princess" (Police Observation)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action was taken by the Thames river police concerning the motor vessel "Royal Princess" which went adrift from Cadogan Pier on the night of 25th May.

Mr. Deedes: The Thames River police kept the motor vessel "Royal Princess" under casual observation on the evening of 24th May. No further police action was necessary.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that this was one of the incidents of hooliganism which are becoming increasingly characteristic of the silly young men and women of London society, and that if a working-class football supporters' club hired a steamer and behaved in that way they would find themselves in the cells?

Mr. Deedes: Without accepting the premise in the second part of the supplementary question, all I can say is that there were no incidents on that occasion which called for police action.

Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the incidents included the

throwing of two Guards officers into the Thames, throwing chairs and bottles of champagne after them, and the use of fire hoses?

Breaches of the Peace, Mayfair

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place for breach of the peace in the Mayfair area of London during the present year.

Mr. Deedes: I have assumed the hon. Member's Question to refer to prosecutions for assault or for using insulting words or behaviour whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned. So far this year six persons have been prosecuted by the police for one or other of these offences in the Mayfair area. In one case the charge was dismissed.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that on the night of 25th May some Guards officers and their girl friends performed dangerous antics on the roof of a building in Curzon Street, and threw glasses of champagne down on passersby? Will he make sure that breaches of the peace are treated by the police as breaches of the peace and not just as cases of youthful high spirits because they happen to occur among the rich and influential?

Mr. Deedes: The best answer that I can give the hon. Member is that the police have no record of any disorder in the streets of Mayfair this year caused by people attending parties.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Calcutta University (Degrees)

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Education why he does not regard a graduate degree of the University of Calcutta as equivalent to a degree of an English university for the purpose of determining the status of a teacher.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): I understand that neither the length nor the standard of ordinary degree courses at Calcutta University is equivalent to that of Universities in this country. It has, however, been the practice of my Department to accept for graduate status first class honours degrees or higher degrees of Calcutta University.

Mrs. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that the University of London does recognise this degree and has accepted for postgraduate studies a constituent of mine who holds the degree of bachelor of arts of the University of Calcutta? Is it not inconsistent for the Ministry to refuse to pay this man as a graduate teacher, and to continue to pay him as a nongraduate teacher, when in fact the University of London accepts him as a postgraduate student?

Sir D. Eccles: I am not aware of the practice of London University, but the constituent about whom the hon. Lady wrote to me obtained a pass degree on a two-year course only. I think she will appreciate that, as the bulk of our teachers here have done a two-year course and are not graduates, I can hardly recognise a course of that length as equivalent to the three-year course taken by teachers who have been to an ordinary university here.

Mr. Drayson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he considers "failed B.A., Calcutta" as good as "failed B.A., London"?

Private Schools (Ownership and Conduct)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Education if he is satisfied with the present arrangements under which private persons are able to own or conduct private schools; and if he will consider taking steps to strengthen such arrangements so as to prevent schools being opened by or passing into the hands of people unsuitable to have the care of children and young people.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): As my right hon. Friend announced last December, Part III of the Education Act, 1944, will be brought into operation in September, 1957. This will help to achieve the object my hon. Friend has in mind, and, in the meantime, I am satisfied that the current arrangements are the best that can be devised.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent case in which an undischarged bankrupt and ex-convict was convicted of running a private school on a completely fraudulent basis, involving frequent moves of the entire school to avoid creditors? Does not that indicate the desirability of close supervision in the interests of parents and children?

Mr. Vosper: I am aware of that case, and I think that my hon. Friend may be satisfied that the measures to which I have referred will prevent that particular gentleman from being a trouble to the education authorities again and will provide a safeguard in future cases.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to look again at the suggested draft Regulations for the registration of private schools? Is it not the case that the draft as at present suggested would not enable his right hon. Friend to get any information as to the moral suitability or unsuitability of persons to practise as teachers?

Mr. Vosper: As the hon. Member has stated, they are draft Regulations, but I will bear in mind what he has said.

School Grounds (Tree Planting)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Education what steps are taken to encourage the planting of trees around the playing fields and other grounds of schools which come under his jurisdiction.

Sir D. Eccles: This matter is dealt with in two of the Ministry's building bulletins. I am sending my hon. Friend details.

Sir F. Medlicott: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to encourage the growing of trees, not only for their own sake but also to relieve the austerity of some of the buildings with which this generation has been afflicted?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 4TH JUNE—Second Reading of the Copyright Bill [Lords].
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Consideration of the Motions to approve the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (India) Order; and the Draft Calf Subsidies Schemes (England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and Scotland).
TUESDAY, 5TH JUNE—Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 6TH JUNE—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on the situation in Kenya.
THURSDAY, 7TH JUNE—Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY, 8TH JUNE—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in connection with Monday's business. I inquired at the Vote Office for three documents which are necessary for proper consideration of the Copyright Bill. I wrote to the principal of the Vote Office and asked why I could not get them. I have a letter from him indicating that under a certain regulation he is not allowed to supply them. This is an urgent matter, Mr. Speaker, because hon. Members cannot properly consider the Copyright Bill unless these documents are available. The letters are short, and, perhaps you will allow me to read them to you so that you—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we can deal with the matter in that way. There is a restriction, by Treasury rules of long standing, on what documents can be supplied. Moreover, it is not possible for the Vote Office to have every conceivable document which the hon. and learned Member may think necessary for consideration of the subject in hand. 1f he will come to see me about the matter.

and have a word with me, I will try to do what I can to help him.

Mr. Hughes: May I make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am not making any complaint whatsoever against or about the officer in the Vote Office, who was merely doing his duty. However, of the three documents, two are Command Papers, comparatively recent ones, and the other is the Copyright Act, 1911.

Mr. Speaker: It would be a waste of the time of the House to go into the matter now. I wish the hon. and learned Member would give me particulars, when I will do my best to put the matter straight for him.

Mr. Hughes: This is a most serious matter, Mr. Speaker, for we are to consider the Copyright Bill on Monday and we have only the weekend in which to consider it now, and we cannot consider it unless we can take the documents home with us. Tomorrow is Friday, and we shall not have access to the Library on Saturday.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a most important matter affecting all back benchers? There was a case recently, which I brought to the notice of the House, of all the members of a Standing Committee being unable, without paying for it, to get hold of an Act of 1930, which was essential for our purpose. I wonder whether, in your capacity as the protector of the rights of back benchers, Sir, you will be able to bring some influence to bear on the authorities responsible, so that this obvious anomaly may be rectified as soon as possible.

Mr. Hector Hughes: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Some complaints have reached me recently, similar to that mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), and I have made some inquiries into the matter. I shall pursue them to see whether I can do anything to improve the position. Hon. Members will realise that the main difficulty consists in the forecasting by the Vote Office what documents may be needed by all the Standing Committees. It is not easy, with our limited storage space, to accomplish this,


but I will look into the matter further, and if I can help I shall be only too pleased to do so.

Mr. Strauss: In the case to which I have referred, Mr. Speaker, it was not a question of documents not being available, but, according to a Treasury ruling, of hon. Members not being entitled to have them without payment of a certain fee.

Mr. Speaker: That raises another aspect of the matter which I think we ought to look at, too.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether, when you have pursued your inquiries further, you will make a statement to the House upon the matter. Hon. Members have been complaining that these facilities are not available to them, and they are necessary facilities if hon. Members are to fulfil their functions as Members of the House. May I respectfully ask you whether you will make a statement shortly after you have concluded your present researches?

Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly consider this matter again in the light of such evidence as hon. Members supply to me, and I hope that hon. Members who have encountered these difficulties will be kind enough to write to me telling me the documents for which they asked and those which they were unable to obtain. If I have some basis of fact on which I can proceed I can deal, I hope, with the organisational problem which the Vote Office faces, and also with any objections which may come from the Treasury or other quarters.

Mr. Bevan: Would it not just assist your inquiries, Mr. Speaker, to find out the rule which is being applied, instead of asking hon. Members to provide you with instances? That will take longer than it would to find out what is the rule now being applied. The answer to the question at the moment is not physical inconvenience, but that the conventions and rules of the House prevent these documents from being supplied. If the rule is ascertained first, that may short-circuit the investigation.

Mr. Speaker: The rule is easily ascertainable. Why I want particulars from hon. Members is to furnish myself with evidence as to whether or not the

rule is inadequate or obsolete. I cannot tell where the shoe pinches until I get the information. If I am given that information I will do all I can to help.

Mr. Edelman: In view of the deteriorating situation in Coventry, will the Government now provide time for an early debate on automation?

Mr. Butler: I think we must examine the situation in Coventry in relation to automation and to the general situation, which I think the Prime Minister would like to discuss with the Minister of Labour. I cannot guarantee that time will be given immediately, but I do not want to underestimate the importance we attach to the situation, of which the hon. Member has close personal knowledge.

Sir A. Braithwaite: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving time to debate the Motion standing in my name and the names of a very large number of other Members of the House on the question of Commonwealth Development?
[That this House, being of the opinion that the development of raw materials throughout the Commonwealth is vital in assisting the balance of payments and is essential to the prosperity of the United Kingdom and of all other countries within the Commonwealth, urges Her Majesty's Government, by achieving an annual economy in national expenditure to make available an amount equal to five per centum of the annual revenue of the United Kingdom for the exclusive purpose of providing facilities of communication, water and power which are essential to such development.]

Mr. Butler: I have seen my hon. Friend's Motion, and, while I cannot undertake today that there will be time available, I will certainly be ready to discuss with him the important issues which are raised in his Motion. I do not want to underestimate the importance of the subject.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the requests which reach the right hon. Gentleman about the desirability of allotting time for the discussion of important topics, as, for example, automation, alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), and that mentioned by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) opposite, surely it would be advisable to have Bills


to be considered in Committee sent upstairs, in order to afford more time here for other important matters.
For example, this week we shall have spent three days on the Committee stage of Bills on the Floor of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Report stage."] And Report stage, I agree. We were in Committee on one of the Bills. At any rate, I press this consideration. It is in the interests of hon. Members and the business of the House. Would it not be desirable to consider whether some of these Bills should be sent upstairs?

Mr. Butler: This week we have been engaged upon Report and Third Reading of Bills which had been in Committee upstairs, and Report and Third Reading, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, have to be taken on the Floor of the House. The Committees upstairs have been very heavily charged with work, and we could not at present add to that, but when we are planning next Session's programme we shall bear in mind the point which the right hon. Gentleman makes. I would point out that there are the allotted Supply Days, and that it is up to the Opposition to choose for them interesting subjects, to which the right hon. Gentleman attaches so much importance.

Mr. J. Griffiths: While we on this side of the House will take full advantage of Supply days, on an important question like this, concerning Coventry, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is some obligation upon the Government to provide time themselves?

Mr. Butler: I could not necessarily accept that in this particular instance, important though the situation is, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are always ready to allot the time of the House to subjects which are of the greatest national importance at present.

Mr. H. Hynd: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Government propose to give facilities for the final stages of the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill?

Mr. Butler: We have done very well to get as far as we have. We shall proceed

with the later stages when we have made a little progress with the Finance Bill and I shall adhere to the undertaking which I have given to the House on several occasions, that the Bill will have normal priority with all other business. If we pursue the matter in that spirit we shall make the same progress as we have made up to now.

Mr. C. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when time will be given to discussing the Mid-Wales Investigation Report, which has been in the Government's hands for a considerable time?

Mr. Butler: We have that subject in mind. If the hon. Member will exercise the customary Celtic patience I think that he will be satisfied.

BILL PRESENTED

HILL FARMING

Bill to extend the time within which livestock rearing land improvement schemes may be submitted under the Hill Farming Act, 1946, increase the maximum amount that may be paid in the aggregate by way of grants in respect of the cost of work done in accordance with such schemes and extend the time within which the said maximum may be further increased by order of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State; and to prolong the powers under that Act of those Ministers to make subsidy payments in respect of hill sheep and hill cattle, presented by Mr. Amory; supported by Major Lloyd-George, Mr. J. Stuart, Mr. H. Brooke, Mr. N. Macpherson, and Mr. Nugent; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Road Traffic Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), further considered.

New Clause.—(WAGES AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS EMPLOYED IN PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES.)

Section ninety-three of the Act of 1930 (which contains provisions concerning the wages and conditions of employment of persons employed in public service vehicles) shall apply in relation to a contract carriage as it applies to a public service vehicle in use under a road service licence and accordingly subsections (1) and (2) of section one hundred and thirteen of the Act of 1930 (which relate to prosecutions and penalties) shall apply to any person decided by the Industrial Court to have been guilty of a breach of the said section ninety-three as applied by this section.—[Mr. Oliver.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. G. H. Oliver: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
A stranger coming into this country would be surprised, if he were interested in industrial matters, to find that in 1956 it is necessary to move the Second Reading of a Clause of this character. As the Minister well knows—since we have discussed the matter rather fully in Standing Committee—the Clause purports to give to drivers of contract carriages the same protection in respect of wages and conditions of employment as is given to drivers of stage carriages and express carriages. We should give to drivers of coaches which bring visitors to and from London and the provinces the same protection as we give to drivers of our municipal buses and to drivers of express carriages, of which the best example I know is the Green Line coaches, for which the minimum fare is not less than 1s.
Section 93 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, reads as follows:
 The wages paid by the holder of any road service licence to persons employed by him in connection with the operation of a public service vehicle and the conditions of their employment shall not be less favourable to them than the wages which would be payable and the conditions which would have to be observed under a contract which complied with the requirement of any resolution of the House

of Commons for the time being in force applicable to contracts with Government departments.
It is now 1956 and the time has come when we ought to take a step forward and incorporate, within the provisions which we made 25 years ago for drivers of public service vehicles, stage carriages and express carriages, the coach drivers with whom the people of this country are now so familiar.
I recognise that it is not quite as simple to deal with these drivers as it is to deal with stage carriage drivers and express carriage drivers who drive under a road service licence which is not applicable to a contract carriage. But I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of man, and certainly not beyond the wit of people at the Ministry, to evolve a scheme to apply to this class of driver the conditions which are applied to other vehicle drivers. It may not be possible or necessary to apply a road service licence, but surely some other licence could be adopted which would bring about the same result.
It is most unfair to this large and everincreasing body of drivers to have no standard by which their wages and conditions of employment can be fixed and improved, and it is also unfair to employers that they do not know what their competitors are paying their drivers. There must be, therefore, a general tendency to obtain this class of driver free of any Industrial Court decision or of any organised mechanism for fixing rates of pay. Free of those trammels, the employer and workmen are at liberty to fix whatever price they like, and that is really disastrous to a well-organised industry of this kind in these days.
This matter was considered by the Thesiger Committee on the Licensing of Road Passenger Services, which stated, in paragraph 353 of its Report, headed "Fair Wages Clause—Section 93":
This Section applies what is generally known as the Fair Wages Clause to holders of road service licences. It has been proposed to us that it should be extended to apply to contract carriage operators also. We agree, in principle, that the Section should be so modified as to require contract carriage operators to observe the appropriate rate for contract carriage work (which may differ from that for stage or express carriage work) in the district, and we recommend accordingly. If our proposal for a new form of licence relating to contract carriage work is adopted, failure to comply with this provision should be treated


as a breach of the conditions of that licence (as in the case of a road service licence at present).
It has also been suggested that instead of the present requirement to observe wages and conditions of employment in accordance with the Fair Wages Clause, there should be substituted a requirement to observe wages and conditions in accordance with those of the appropriate National Council for the industry. It appears however that such National Council wages and conditions do not cover the whole of the country. We suggest that full discussion with the organisations of employers and workers concerned should precede any decision on this proposal.
I am sure that the Thesiger Committee could never have reached that conclusion unless it had been satisfied on the evidence. The important thing is not the to and fro across the Floor of the House of Commons, but the evidence which the Committee had before it before reaching that decision, and the Thesiger Committee was satisfied that the time had come when some alteration should be made.
On that occasion, it was the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who replied to the debate in the Committee upstairs. Perhaps I might have his attention for a moment, which will also give me the opportunity of congratulating him upon his recent honour. If the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of the matter we are now discussing, let me tell him that we are discussing the new Clause in respect of Section 93 of the 1930 Act. Upstairs, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I have listened to the debate with close attention, and I repeat that the Government are in no way opposed to the principle of applying the fair wages clause. Before anything of this kind is done it is obviously necessary that there should be consultation with both sides of the industry, and I am prepared to undertake that between now and the Report stage we will discuss the matter—naturally, with the Ministry of Labour, but also with the two sides of the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 15th November, 1955, c. 426.]
I do not know whether consultations have taken place, but I know that the opinions of the various bodies have been sought. That is not quite the same thing as consulting with the various bodies as to the applicability of that Section to these men. From the information I have been able to glean, it would appear that all the people directly concerned on the employers' side are in favour—but it is true that I have not myself interrogated those people.
I cannot understand the answer of the Minister to a Question I submitted a few weeks ago. The Minister said that he had received replies and that he was opposed to the application of that Section to these men. My information is that the Public Transport Association, the British Transport Commission and the Passenger Vehicle Operators' Association are all in favour of the application, and they appear to be the principal organisations concerned. Therefore, I should like to know whether consultations have been conducted or whether opinions only have been ascertained.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will think seriously about this matter, because it seems iniquitous that we should be talking about the fair wages clause for a large body of people in the year 1956, and it is a slight on our intelligences if we cannot put these men in the same position as other drivers of motor vehicles.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I beg to second the Motion.
It seems ridiculous that in these days, when, on both sides of the House, we accept the principle of the fair wages clause, and when the Government accept it as a matter of policy, we should hesitate to apply the principle in connection with contract carriages. The fair wages clause in every industry throughout the country is vital, from the point of view of both the employers and the employees.
There are two points involved. First, the fair wages clause ensures that those engaged in the industry are paid wages and are provided with conditions of employment which are in keeping with the recognised undertakings reached by negotiation or by some other means. Secondly, it also affords protection for the good employer of labour who wants to pay his men a fair wage and wants to give them fair conditions of employment but is up against some measure of competition. The fact that the fair wages clause has been so generally accepted throughout industry, and so generally accepted by both sides of this House, is in itself an indication that we believe in the principle not only of fair wages and fair conditions of employment, but also of fair competition.
I join with my hon. and learned Friend in asking the Minister to look into the matter again, in spite of the fact that he
replied in the negative some time ago. It is a small matter compared with the great issues involved. The principle is an important one, and I am sure that the Minister will say from the Dispatch Box this afternoon that he and the Government stand by it. And although this is a small matter, it is important to the individual concerned, whether he be an employer or an employee.
In these days, when we expect the fair wages clause to apply throughout the country, there is no justification for the Government or the Minister saying that there are difficulties which prevent the acceptance of this desirable protection for both sides of the industry. I believe that there are no difficulties which cannot be overcome if the Minister has the will and the determination to overcome them.
I ask the Minister, in the interests of both sides of the industry, in general fairness, and to maintain that pride which we have had for so many years and which has contributed to so much industrial peace and good will, to say this afternoon that he will see how far it is possible to implement the purpose of this new Clause to ensure that the contract carriages are brought into line with other sections of the transport industry.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I should like to add my support to what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), who moved this Motion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), who seconded it. I hope that the Government, after having given due consideration to this matter since it was raised during the Committee stage, have now come to the conclusion that this kind of provision is necessary, desirable and practicable.
As far as we gathered from the debates in Committee and from the consultations which have taken place, all are favourable to the application of the fair wages clause to contract carriages. The Thesiger Committee reported in favour of its application, and recommended that the fair wages clause should apply to all contract carriages. It is perfectly true that its recommendation included a new form of licence for such vehicles, which recommendation the Government decided they were unable to accept.
In parenthesis, one might say that this Committee reported about two and a half years ago and made a great number of recommendations. It is regrettable that very few of them have been accepted by the Government or have been acted upon. A large number of committees is appointed by different Ministries, and very valuable reports from them appear, yet so often they are pidgeon-holed and no action is taken.
In the case of the Thesiger Committee. I think that this recommendation, and many of the others, deserved a little more consideration and more favourable action than the Government appear to have taken. Not only did the Thesiger Committee recommend the application of the fair wages clause to contract carriages, but the trade unions are strongly in favour of it, and a very large section of the industry, I understand, is not opposed to its application. No doubt, the Minister will be able to give us more information about that, but I recall that, during our deliberations upstairs, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) stated that private firms in the Midlands at least, as far as he was aware, observed the fair wages clause, and the hon. Gentleman implied, of course, that they were not opposed to its application.
When we had the debate in Committee, we gathered from the reply of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that in principle the fair wages clause was accepted by the Government. Here, I, too, should like to extend my congratulations to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on his elevation to the Privy Council, which is certainly deserved following the long spell which he has had at the Ministry of Transport and by reason of the very hard work which the right hon. Gentleman has put in. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, after considerable pressure from this side, gave the impression that, in principle, the fair wages clause was accepted by the Government, as, of course, it is in a great number of cases. He added:
—there is no reason of principle why it should not be extended to contract vehicles.
In spite of the fact that the Government had rejected the recommendation of the Thesiger Report in connection with the


licensing of contract vehicles, the right hon. Gentleman added:
I have no doubt that if it appeared to be desirable for a provision of this kind to be extended, the ingenuity of the Minister of Transport would be sufficient to produce some machinery by which it could be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 15th November, 1955; c. 425.]
That is to say—and I share the belief— that the ability of the officials of his Ministry is such that, administratively, this would not be impossible. We think that it is very desirable, and we would very much like the Ministry to work out a form of administration which could bring it into effect.
As my hon. and learned Friend has said, from the reply to a Parliamentary Question recently it appeared that the Government have rejected the recommendation of the Thesiger Report after further consideration, and also the suggestions made by us during the Committee stage. I should like to know from the Minister why there has been this change of front. In Committee, we got the impression that, although the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave no undertaking, and all he promised was to have further consultations and consider the matter, that it would be favourable consideration, and there now seems to have been a change of front.
There is a strong case here, which has been made out by my hon. Friends and which I do not need to repeat, for the application of the fair wages clause to the contract carriages, so that the whole industry is equally covered in that respect It may not be so easy to devise an administrative form for it in this case, because this is one part of the industry which is divided up into a very large number of separate operators. It is not well organised and not so easily controlled, but there is no reason to believe that some form of administration, with effective enforcement, could not be worked out.
There are considerable difficulties in this section of the road passenger transport industry. A very large number of small operators, as well as larger ones, have engaged in this contract carriage business, running private parties all over the country on different occasions. There is some part-time employment in the industry, and there is very considerable

competition. It is because of the considerable competition which exists and the division of the industry among so many operators that we feel concern for the well-being of the men employed. We are fearful that there is, on occasions, and that there might well be in future, undercutting in the industry which results in the men's wages and conditions of employment not being comparable with those in other sections of the industry or with those in comparable industries.
We suggest, therefore. for these reasons, that the Government should give serious consideration once more to the application of the fair wages clause to contract carriages. I trust that the Minister, having had this very long period since the debate took place in Committee on 15th November last year, which is about six months, has had an opportunity of full consultation with the unions and the industry, and also with the Ministry of Labour, and will perhaps now be able to give us some indication of what the result of these consultations has been.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The matter which is raised by this new Clause is a very wide-ranging one, and I must trouble the House with a little detail. because it really is very important. As the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) quite rightly said, my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did undertake, in Committee, to go into this matter very fully and try to bring all concerned into consultation.
As this is the first opportunity that I have had, I should like to say in the House, because I think it is the right place to say it, how deeply grateful I am to my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for all the very great help which he has given me on this very complex and difficult Bill. I do not think that I could have got through without his great help and assistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We had these consultations carried out quite properly and in detail, along with the Ministry of Labour, and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, they included the municipalities, the Transport Commission and the trade union side of the National Council for the Omnibus Industry. It is only fair to say that the municipalities and the Transport Commission on the whole favoured the idea, and so


did the unions. So there was no difficulty there.
This is the difficult point. When we went into it, as I did personally with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, we found that there is great objection in principle to doing this through the fair wages clause. This is important and it needs to be explained. Nobody is more anxious than I am to get a fair wages obligation into operation in this part of the industry, but we found that in the past a fair wages clause has invariably been a condition of the grant to an industry or to a firm of a direct Government benefit in the way of a contract or something similar.
I knew a little about this, having been in the Ministry of Labour, but I was not aware how strictly it was applied. I am advised that the condition of the application of a fair wages clause has so far never breached the principle that it rests upon the grant by the Government of a benefit in some form or other to the person or industry to whom the clause applies. A holder of a road service licence can be said to receive Government benefit because it is a direct grant from the Government. That is why he is quite properly subject to the fair wages clause.
The difficulty is that, as has been pointed out, a contract carriage operator has no road service licence and, therefore, receives no such protection. Since his business consists primarily in private hire work, he is able to obtain it on his own account. I am advised that we cannot therefore maintain that there is any grant of Government favour to him in any possible way. The position is that if we were to do this for this relatively small but important number of people, we should be making a quite new precedent which has never occurred before.

Mr. Oliver: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to "benefit", is it not a notional benefit? If it is not notional, in what form is it enjoyed by the participants?

Mr. Watkinson: The holder of a road service licence does, of course, get some protection, for he gets protection from unrestricted competition. He gets it only by the Government grant of the licence. It is, I admit, a narrow point. None the

less, I am satisfied that if we were to do this through a fair wages clause, we would be creating a new precedent. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has advised me that that is so and that it would start a new precedent for the application of a fair wages clause.
On those grounds, therefore, the new Clause rests upon, or would establish, a new principle which, I think, would be wrong. I am sensible of the powerful points that have been made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and his two hon. Friends and I agree that it would be both desirable and necessary—there is, I think, agreement in the whole House on this--if possible, to impose a similar duty to the fair wages clause. All I am saying is that it would be wrong to do it through the application of a fair wages clause.
Obviously, I cannot give a commitment, because it is only after these long discussions and examinations that the point finally came out, but I certainly undertake to examine carefully whether there is any other way in which we can impose this quite proper obligation upon this part of the industry. It cannot, however, be through the fair wages clause and I cannot at the moment see a way of doing it. I will certainly see whether the ingenuity of my Ministry can be stretched a little further.
I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member will withdraw the new Clause, subject to the firm undertaking I have given to try to see whether we can find some other way of doing what is desired. I am sure that it would be wrong to breach the present principle of the grant of the fair wages clause.

Mr. McLeavy: If the Government accept the principle of the fair wages clause, surely no great principle would be involved if, without appearing to confer any benefit on a certain class but to bring that class into line with other sections of industry, they said that a question of public policy is involved and that, therefore, they propose to put the principle into effect.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: That is a fair point, 'but, having looked carefully into the matter and consulted my colleagues who are concerned, I am sure that it would be wrong to do it in that way. It would,
therefore, be wrong for me to advise the House to accept the new Clause. I am sorry it has not been possible for me to go further in seeking alternatives. That has not been through any lack of will, but merely because the point finally came to settlement only a comparatively few weeks ago. Therefore, all I can do is to give a firm undertaking to see whether there is some other way of achieving this end.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We all realise the difficulties inherent in this problem and most of us—certainly, all on this side of the House—are anxious that the fair wages principle should be extended to this class of people. Obviously, there are anomalies at the moment in that those working in ordinary express carriages, and so on, should be subject to the fair wages clause whilst people who work contract carriages are not subject to this protection.
The Minister and his Joint Parliamentary Secretary, to whom I should like to add my warm felicitations to those which have been expressed by others, have also said that they favour this principle and would like to apply it if they can. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he will look into the matter and see what other steps can be taken.
The matter has been looked into for the last six months. We were told in Committee in November that it would be considered. The Bill is now before the House. It will shortly go to the other place, and when it is passed, which, we hope, will be within a few weeks, as far as I am aware there will be no other way of dealing with this proposal.
If we can be told by the Minister that there is another effective way outside of legislation by which it can be dealt with and that it is desired to deal with it, if possible, by such other means, that is something which my hon. Friends will take into account before deciding whether to divide the House. Alternatively, if the right hon. Gentleman says that he will be able to conclude his consideration of the matter by the time that the Bill goes to the House of Lords and, if possible,

have an Amendment moved there, that is something which we must also take into account. Otherwise, the situation appears to me that either we must assert the principle here or we have to give up any idea of its application perhaps for years to come.
The view of my hon. Friends—certainly, my view—is that if we are faced with that choice, in spite of all the difficulties that exist and the new precedents that are likely to be created. I would like the House to accept the principle now. I hope that if the Minister does not agree, the House will vote on the matter, because the fact appears to be that there is no chance of doing anything for years to come to get the proper protection of a fair wages clause for these people unless it is incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Watkinson: if the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) feels that he must divide the House, then he must divide it, because I cannot accept the fair wages clause as the way of doing this. I want to make that plain. Equally, I do not rule out that there is another way. For example, it may be possible to do this—this is not my responsibility, but that of my colleague the Minister of Labour—through the joint statutory machinery of the Industrial Disputes Order, which enables unions to bring an employer before the Industrial Disputes Tribunal on the ground that he is not observing recognised terms and conditions applicable to similar work in the area. The Tribunal can make an award requiring the employer to observe the required terms and conditions, or others not less favourable.
That is a possible means, and I think that my colleague the Minister of Labour has adequate powers to preserve that principle. I will certainly look at the matter before the Bill goes to another place, but I want to make it plain that I cannot do what is asked through an extension of the fair wages clause procedure.

Question put;—

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 230.

Division No. 198.]
AYES
[4.21 p.m


Ainsley, J.W.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bence, C. C. (Dunbatonshire, E.)


Albu, A. H.
Anderson, Frank
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bacon, Miss Alice
Benson, G.


Allon, Arthur (Bosworth)
Balfour, A.
Beswick, F






Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Blaokburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Reeves, J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Boyd, T. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Danner, B.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brockway, A. F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Helper)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Royle, C.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, E. W.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shurrner, P. L. E.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Champion, A. J.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Chapman, W. D.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Clunie, J.
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Coidrick, W.
Ledger, R. J.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, J. W.


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lewis, Arthur
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacColl, J. E.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McInnes, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Deer, G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McLeavy, Frank
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on.Trent,C.)


Delargy, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Mahon, Simon
Sylvester, G. 0.


Donnelly, D. L.
Melialieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edelman, M.
Messer, Sir F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thornton, E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Moody, A. S.
Tomney, F.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Usborne, H. C.


Fletcher, Eric
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Viant, S. P.


Forman, J. C.
Mort, D. L.
Warbey, W. N.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moss, R.
Weitzman, D.


Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Greenwood, Anthony
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
West, D. G.


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Griffiths, David (Rothe, Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Orem, A. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hale, Leslie
Orbaoh, M.
Willey, Frederick


Hamilton, W. W.
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hannan, W.
Owen, W. J.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hastings, S.
Padley, W. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Hayman, F. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Healey, Denis
Pargiter, C. A.
Woof, R. E.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rowly Regis)
Parker, J.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, John
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hobson, C. R.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Zilliacus, K.


Holmes, Horace
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

_


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Probert, A. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hoy, J. H.
Proctor, W. T.
Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Wilkins.


Hubbard, T. F.
Randall, H. E.






NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Doughty, C. J. A.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bryan, P.
Drayson, G. B.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
du Cann, E. D. L.


Armstrong, C. W.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Atkins, H. E.
Burden, F. F. A.
Duthie, W. S


Baldwin, A. E.
Campbell, Sir David
Eden,Rt. H n.S irA ( W arwick&amp;L'm'tn)


Barber, Anthony
Cary, Sir Robert
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Barlow, Sir John
Channon, H.
Errington, Sir Eric


Barter, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Erroll, F. J.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cole, Norman
Fell, A.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Fletoher-Cooke, C.


Bidgood, J. C.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fort, R.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Foster, John


Black, C. W.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Body, R. F.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Crouch, R. F.
Freeth, D. K.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Cunningham, Knox
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Currie, G. B. H.
Glover, D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Dance, J. C. O.
Codber, J. B.


Braine, B. R.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gough, C. F. H


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Deedes, W. F.
Gower, H. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Grant, W (Woodside)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MeA.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)







Green, A.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Renton, D. L. M.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Longden, Gilbert
Rippon, A. G. F.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Luoas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Robertson, Sir David


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. N.
Lucas,P. B. (Brantford &amp; Chiswick)
Robson-Brown, W.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roper, Sir Harold


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maydon)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Russell, R. 8.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harvey, John (Wafthamstow, E.)
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Sharpies, R. C.


Hay, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Shepherd, William


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macpherson, Malt (Dumfries)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maddan, Martin
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Speir, R. M.


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Marples, A. E.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Holt, A. F.
Marshall, Douglas
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hope, Lord John
Mathew, R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Maude, Angus
Studholme, H. G.


HOrObirl, Sir Ian
Maydon, Lt-Comdr, S. L. C.
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Molson, A. H. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Teeling, W.


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hurd, A. R.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Hutehlson,Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Mott-Radciyffe, C. E.
Thornton-Kemsiey, C. N.


Hutchison, Sir James (Sootstoun)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hyde,Montgornery
Nairn, D. L. 8.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Heave, Aker
Touche, Sir Gordon


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Turner, H. F. L.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'Ch)
Tweedsmulr, Lady


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Johnson, Erlo (Blackleg)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wade, D. W.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Keegan, D.
Page, R. G.
Wall, Major Patrick


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdaie)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Kershaw, J. A.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Flt. Hon. C.


Kimball, M.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Kirk, P. M.
Pitman, I. J.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Lagden, G. W.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pott, H. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Leavey, J. A.
Prior.Paimer, Brig. 0. L.
Woollam, John Victor


Leburn, W. G.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ramsden, J. E.



Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfieid)
Rawlinson, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Redmayne, M.
Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Remnant, Hon. P.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 5 OF ACT OF 1930.)

(1) In subsection (2) of section five of the Act of 1930 (which provides that a licensing authority shall, subject as therein mentioned, refuse to grant a licence if from the declaration it appears that the applicant is suffering from any disease or physical disability which would be likely to cause the driving by him of a motor vehicle, being a vehicle of such a class or description as he would be authorised by the licence to drive, to be a source of danger to the public) after the word "appears" where that word first occurs there shall be inserted the words "or if on inquiry into the matter the licensing authority are satisfied".
(2) After subsection (2) of the said section five there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(2a) Where the holder of a licence at any time becomes aware that he is suffering from any disease or physical disability as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section

but which was not disclosed in the declaration made by him under that subsection when he applied for the licence or where such a disease or physical disability was so disclosed but has become worse since the said declaration was made, he shall forthwith notify the licensing authority to that effect". —[Mr. Skeffington.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I should mention that the proposed new Clause has the full support of several county councils, including the London County Council. I say that not because I believe such a commendation is always warmly received by hon. Members opposite, but because it is of some value in this connection, since the London County


Council undoubtedly issues more driving licences than any other authority. Last year, it issued about 660,000, and, as a result of its work over many years, the council built up a good deal of experience and knowledge on the matter.
The Clause, which is divided into two subsections, is aimed at remedying the present position, which creates some difficulties for the local authorities issuing driving licences and may increase dangers on the road. It aims at tightening up the conditions governing the granting of driving licences. Subsection (1) deals with the difference between the conditions governing the refusal to grant a driving licence and those governing its revocation. Except in very rare circumstances a licence can be refused only if, from the applicant's declaration, it appears that he or she is suffering from a disease specified in the 1930 Act, or from a physical disability which would be likely to cause him or her to drive dangerously, or become a source of danger to others.
In the case of the revocation of a licence, the licensing authority is allowed to use information other than that supplied by the applicant. It sometimes happens that the authority receives police information as to the applicant's condition and fitness to drive a vehicle. This is so particularly in the case of authorities outside London, who have police departments. The information thus received from the police can be used in the case of the revocation of a licence, but not in the case of a refusal to grant one; in the latter case the decision must be based purely upon the information supplied upon the application form.
Information may also be forwarded to the licensing authority by the parents or near relatives of a person, who know that he or she is suffering from some disease or physical disability, but, strictly speaking, the licensing authority is not permitted to use such information in refusing to grant a licence. Parents who know the real facts sometimes disclose them to the authority. This information can be used to uphold a revocation, but not a refusal to grant a licence. Subsection (1) would put the conditions in relation to the refusal to grant a licence upon the same footing as those which now apply in the case of a revocation.
It seems to be a very reasonable proposal, and I think that it would help generally, in the interests of safety. If the Minister feels that the additional information should be strictly limited, it would be quite easy to insert, in a subsequent stage of the Bill, words such as "information from the police", or "information from a near relative," or something of that sort. I am quite prepared to agree that a limit should be placed upon such additional information, if the Minister thinks it desirable, but in the interests of road safety I urge him to support the provision of the subsection as being a very reasonable one.
Subsection (2) deals with the new situation which will arise if the periodicity of licences is extended to three years instead of one. Under Section 5 of the 1930 Act. any local authority has power to refuse or revoke a licence where the applicant is suffering either from one of the specified diseases or from some physical disability, and the present requirement of Section 5 (1) of the Act is that the applicant shall make a personal declaration of fitness when he applies for a licence. In present circumstances, that has occurred every year, and it is not unreasonable to assume that in the intervening 12 months nothing very serious is likely to occur in the condition of the applicant, but if the period is extended to three years, as the Minister now proposes—which is an appreciable time in the life of the individual—a disease or a disability may become very much worse in that time.
The Clause provides that there shall be an obligation upon the applicant to notify the licensing authority if his condition, for the reasons which I have mentioned, deteriorates during the currency of the licence. There are sonic obvious examples. A man's sight may deteriorate quite considerably over a period of three years, so as to make him a greater risk on the road. There are other conditions. Epilepsy has a tendency to get progressively worse. It may have been of such a character that it was considered safe at one time—although I believe that it is in fact a specified disease. There are other conditions, which, during the period of three years, certainly could have an increasingly serious effect upon an individual's fitness.
Therefore, in the interests of safety, it is considered by authorities such as the London County Council, with its great


experience of these matters over many years, that if the period of currency of a licence is to be extended to three years the applicant ought to be placed under an obligation to notify any serious alteration in his condition. That is the purpose of subsection (2).
I apologise for the fact that I was not a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill, but I understand that the Minister then gave an assurance about the health of an applicant in connection with the Government's proposal to introduce a new Clause extending the period of currency of the licence. I understand that he assured the Committee that when the currency of the licence was extended all the relevant considerations would be taken into account. But the Minister's new Clause, introduced yesterday, made no reference to the physical fitness of drivers during this longer period. I hope that the Minister will feel that the terms of the proposed new Clause provide the proper way of strengthening the Bill in the light of the new conditions which will arise as the result of extending the period of the licence or, alternatively, if he does not feel that the words proposed are suitable, that he will indicate that this is a matter which he feels should be dealt with before the Bill leaves the House.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I beg to second the Motion.
In my opinion, as a doctor, more road accidents than is generally realised are caused through the lack of perfect fitness of drivers, and anything which can be done to ensure and maintain perfect fitness ought to be done. Subsection (1) of the proposed new Clause deals with the question whether, in granting a first licence, all circumstances should be taken into account, including information derived not directly from the applicant but from any other possible sources. I need not remind the House how dangerous epilepsy is. It can cause sudden unconsciousness or partial unconsciousness, and sometimes epilepsy comes on not in childhood, but in adult life. It is not always clear to the person concerned that he has this disease. It may be that the doctor does not make it clear to him or that the person concerned does not want to know about it. I think that in such cases, if the licensing authority by any means obtains such

information, it should take advantage of it.
Subsection (2) deals with conditions which may be getting worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) spoke of deterioration of sight. That may happen, and while, in many cases, deterioration of sight can be put right by glasses, it cannot in every case. In optic neuritis and other conditions of the eye, glasses have no effect whatever. In cases of deterioration of sight which may not be sudden. the difficulty of the driver is in determining distance, because this is done by binocular vision.
If the sight of one eye deteriorates more quickly than the sight of the other, one will be able to see quite well, but will not be able to estimate distance correctly. In such a case, it should be the duty of everyone driving a car to acquaint the authorities, and a licence to drive should not be granted. I strongly support the new Clause on medical grounds. if passed, I think it will do a good deal to increase safety on the roads.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): rose

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Molson: I should like to thank right hon. and hon. Members for their congratulations on the honour which has been conferred upon me.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), has explained that the Clause falls into two parts. As regards the first part, the law at present is laid down in Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. It requires an applicant to state, when he applies for a driving licence, whether or not he is suffering from a disease or a physical disability which might, if he drove a motor vehicle, cause danger to the public. Further, if from the declaration it appears that the applicant is suffering from any such disease or disability, the licensing authority must refuse to grant the licence.
Different views are held whether the licensing authority is entitled to look beyond the declaration made by the applicant. I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harling-ton that the London County Council does


not consider that it is entitled to look beyond the declaration. I am advised that there is a difference of opinion between local authorities on this matter, and that the majority of the larger ones do, in fact, avail themselves of any information which may come to them from outside and which tends to suggest that the applicant is suffering from some ailment of that kind.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: They are acting illegally.

Mr. Molson: It is a matter of opinion whether that is so or not. I am sure that it is extremely desirable that local authorities should have that power. We think that the hon. Gentleman, acting, as he indicated, rather on the suggestion of the London County Council, has put forward a most valuable proposal and we are prepared to accept it in principle. I think that the wording of this part of the new Clause is not entirely apt for its purpose, but, if the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to withdraw it, I will undertake that we will try to devise words and insert them in another place.
I come now to the second part of the Clause. It is quite true that when we were considering in Committee upstairs the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) to extend the currency of a licence from one year to three, I said that I thought that in the period of three years there might be cases where the physical health of the holder of a driving licence might deteriorate, and that, therefore, there was something to be said for an obligation being put upon the holder of the licence to inform the local authority if such a deterioration took place.
4.45 p.m.
We have considered the matter carefully and we have come to the conclusion that it would prove to be completely unworkable. In the vast majority of cases, the holder of the licence might not be aware of the deterioration that had taken place. It is extremely difficult to say what deterioration would put him under that obligation, and there is obviously no machinery by which local authorities could make it operative. Indeed, almost the only cases in which he could be brought within the operation of this Clause would be where an accident had

happened and, as a result of the inquiry that then took place, it was found that a deterioration had taken place.
We are of the opinion that however desirable it may be—and it certainly is—that the holder of a driving licence who finds that his health has deteriorated should surrender his driving licence, this is one of those cases where it is not possible effectively to legislate to compel people to do what every reasonable and public-spirited person would do.

Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt only with half of the second part of the new Clause. There are two points. The one, which he has dealt with, where the condition of illness has deteriorated, and the other, which appears to me to be more important, where a person has developed, say, epilepsy since the time he originally made his application and the licence to drive was granted. The right hon. Gentleman was proposing to sit down without dealing with that point, and I hope that he will do so, because it seems to me that there is a strong case there.

Mr. Molson: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my attention, but, clearly, the main point that I was making also applies to that. A licensing authority has no machinery by which it can ascertain the state of health of those who have held licences which might well have been issued nearly three years previously.

Mr. Strauss: That is the holder of the licence.

Mr. Molson: The point is that under this Clause it will be the duty of the holder of the licence to notify the licensing authority. I say that any publicspirited and reasonable person who knew that his health had so deteriorated that he would be a danger to the public if he went on driving would cease to drive and would surrender his licence, but the only purpose of legislating for such a case is to enable the local authority to enforce that rule of prudence.
Under the new Clause, as drafted, no offence is created; all that is done is to say that there is an obligation upon him to report it, but it will not be an offence for him not to do so, nor is any penalty provided. I did not emphasise that' point because I wanted to deal with the matter


of substance, and the matter of substance is that we do not think it desirable to impose by law an obligation upon people if it is quite impossible to devise any means by which that obligation can be enforced.
We are happy to accept the principle of the first part of the new Clause and will see that the appropriate words are inserted in another place, but we could not advise the Committee to accept the second part of the Clause.

Sir Peter Roberts: I wonder whether I could ask a question. It concerns the principle of hearsay evidence. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied —and I am asking only for guidance— that if, on some hearsay evidence which is incorrect, a local authority withholds a licence, the applicant has the right or the means to appeal against that? It seems that in accepting the first part of the new Clause it would be possible to create a position in which, through erroneous information, which it accepted in good faith, the local authority withheld the licence. I am anxious that my right hon. Friend should consider that point before he introduces fresh wording in another place.

Mr. Molson: As the law stands, an aggrieved applicant could go to court on the ground that the licensing authority had no right to refuse to grant the licence. We will certainly take into account the point which my hon. Friend has raised when we redraft the new Clause.

Sir P. Roberts: It would be undesirable to have to go to those lengths.

Mr. Skeffington: As the first speaker to follow the right hon. Gentleman, may I congratulate him upon the honour conferred on him? I am sure that we were all very pleased to learn about it. The right hon. Gentleman's observations on the first part of my new Clause suggest that this has sweetened his attitude. Perhaps we shall have to think of even further honours for him, and then I might get the whole of the new Clause.
I am obviously in a difficulty in that if I refuse to accept his offer I get nothing. He has conceded the principle of the first part of the new Clause. If it is possible for some local authorities to consider other information, of a carefully chosen kind—and there is some point in the comment made by the hon. Member for

Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) then all local authorities ought to be on the same footing and there ought to be no dubiety about it. No doubt the conditions can be fairly carefully defined so that the information is of such a character that a responsible authority has no difficulty in accepting it. If in any doubt, the authority will make further inquiries. I imagine that there will be no practical difficulty about it.
I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to go further and to accept the second part of the new Clause, because the period of three years which a licence is likely to cover is a long period, and there ought to have been some provision, at any rate, to remind the person concerned that he is under a very special obligation to notify the local authority if his health deteriorates. He can become a menace on the roads. Instances of this are only too frequent. However, on the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman gave, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF A AND B LICENCES.)

(1) There shall be included among the grounds on which an A licence or a B licence may be suspended or revoked under subsection (1) of section thirteen of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (which provides for the revocation or suspension of carriers' licences in certain circumstances) or a direction may be given under subsection (3) of that section, the following additional ground, that is to say, that the holder of the licence has been persistently charging, for services which consist of or include the carriage of goods by road in any of the authorised vehicles, sums insufficient to meet the cost of rendering those services and has thereby placed other holders of licences at an undue or unfair disadvantage in competing with him as respects the carriage of goods by road.
(2) The proviso to the said subsection (1) (which proviso imposes certain conditions on the powers of the licensing authority to revoke or suspend a licence) shall not apply to any revocation, suspension or direction made or given by virtue of this section, but, if the holder of the licence requests the licensing authority to hold a public inquiry, the licensing authority shall not make or give any such revocation, suspension or direction except after holding such an inquiry.
(3) So long as the provisions of section twelve of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (which relates to holding and subsidiary companies), have effect, paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of that section shall apply in relation to


subsection (1) of this section as they apply in relation to Part I of that Act, and references in subsection (1) of this section to charges made by the holder of the licence and to competing with him shall be construed accordingly.—[Mr. Ernest Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I do not think I have ever moved a Motion with less enthusiasm than that with which I move this, and the House will understand the reason when I explain the history which lies behind this new Clause. When the Standing Committee was discussing the Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill, the Government put down a new Clause very similar to that which now appears on the Order Paper, but in Committee we raised serious objections to it, mainly on the ground that if impositions were to apply to road hauliers when they engaged in what was interpreted—although we did not accept it—as unfair practices, those impositions ought to apply equally to the Transport Commission and to private road hauliers. In our view it was quite unfair that there should be discrimination against the Transport Commission.
We accordingly fought against the Clause in Committee, but at that stage the Minister defended it and refused to withdraw it. We placed Amendments on the Order Paper to the effect that the Clause should apply equally to all road hauliers, and the Minister stated that if they had been in order he would have accepted them. In the course of the proceedings he suggested that the difficulty could be overcome by an Amendment to this Bill covering both private and public operators. During the final stages of the Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill, the Minister accordingly withdrew his Clause, which confined the possibility of revocation or suspension of licences, in the case of unfair practices, to the Transport Commission, and agreed to accept this Clause.
The purpose of both this and the original new Clause is to prevent unfair competition. The Government considered that unfair competition arose where holders of licences placed other road hauliers at an unfair competitive disadvantage by undercutting them that is to say, if the licence holder operated

services at a loss, the licensing authority would have the right to revoke or suspend the licence in accordance with Section 13 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.
As I have said, we considered that unnecessary and undesirable. Moreover, the original Clause was unfair to the Commission and inoperable. We stated, however, that if it were applicable to all it might just be tolerated, and I submit this new Clause in that sense—that it can just be tolerated. In other words, the Minister insists on having something, and we say that we can tolerate this, although we do not consider it necessary. If we had not put down the new Clause, no doubt the Minister would have taken action.
5.0 p.m.
There is one change which I hope represents a slight improvement. During the Committee stage discussions on the other Bill we suggested that it was necessary to prove that the engaging in unfair practices was frequent; that it was not enough, every time a service was operated at a loss, for some other road haulier to suggest that the service being operated at a loss was a form of engaging in unfair competition. We suggested that there should be included in the Clause the word "persistently". In other words, were it proved that the Commission or other road hauliers, were making unreasonable charges persistently, and therefore were engaged in this so-called unfair competition, the licence could be suspended or revoked.
Strong arguments have been advanced that even though the Clause were accepted and applied to all road hauliers, the Commission would still be in a position to engage in unfair competition. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) suggested in previous debates that the Commission was in a more favourable position than private hauliers, because it was able to obtain its capital under Treasury guarantee. Compared with other road hauliers, the Commission is at some disadvantage, inasmuch as, being a nationalised sector of the transport industry, it engages in public service, and has therefore to provide, and does provide, a large number of unremunerative services.
It is well known that it is providing a nation-wide comprehensive trunk service


for the carriage of goods by road which covers practically the whole of the United Kingdom. Inevitably, that means that there are considerable losses on some routes, whereas considerable profits may be made on others. The Commission considers it a duty to provide such a public service, but the private hauliers in many instances may be operating a few vehicles and working only on remunerative routes. They go in for what is frequently called "skimming the cream". They pick up the most profitable traffics and operate on the most profitable routes, so that they still have some advantage.
The Commission has been most unfairly treated recently, and the new Clause has been drafted because of the denationalisation of a sector of the Commission's undertaking. Not only has the Commission been unfairly treated by having the recommended number of vehicles which can hold licences reduced by 7½ per cent.—by 582 vehicles—but last Tuesday it was revealed in another place that in future the fixing of the total unladen weight of the vehicles for general haulage which it is allowed to retain will mean that it will be deprived of a further 100 vehicles. The Minister in another place gave the figure of vehicles which the Commission will be able to retain as 101 less than the 7,750 which were recommended to the Minister by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve. Therefore, in my opinion, the Commission is being most unfairly treated.
The competition which arises in the industry, and which the Clause is meant to regulate, has arisen as part of the deliberate policy of the Government. They wanted to reintroduce a large measure of competition into the industry and have succeeeded in so doing. There is a substantial amount of cut-throat competition within the industry today. Rates are being cut, there have been prosecutions, and there is evidence of a deterioration of working conditions. Excessive hours have been worked and the law has been broken.
This excessive competition arising from Government policy is due to the efforts or operations of private hauliers and not the Commission. If there is to be any regulation of unfair competition and the prevention of excessive rate cutting which results in operational losses, the private operators should be affected equally with

the Transport Commission, and that is what is attempted by the Clause.
When the original Clause was drafted, there was a mistaken impression that the Commission had an unfair advantage and engaged in certain monopoly practices. As has frequently been pointed out, both in this House and during Committee discussions, the Commission is not a monopoly operator. In the end, it may well have the largest operating fleet. That we do not deny. It will have the largest fleet, and the best; but, be that as it may, the competition, both from the private enterprise hauliers who can pick and choose their routes, and from the C licence holders, is considerable. Despite that competition, and without engaging in unfair practices, of which it has been indirectly accused by the introduction of the original Clause, the Commission continues to operate very profitably; and despite also the difficulties resulting from the disintegration of certain of its services.
As I said, I move this Motion with little enthusiasm. I would rather the Minister indicated that he has had second thoughts about it. The Clause is not in his name, and he could easily refuse to accept it. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that, should he do so, we shall not take him to a Division on the matter. We consider that the Clause is not really necessary, but it is a great improvement on the original Government proposal, because it applies equally to all road hauliers.

Mr. McLeavy: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not propose to reiterate the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). I think it fair to say that the old Clause was one-sided and designed to affect the Transport Commission rather than private road hauliers. We on this side of the House made clear that this was unreasonable, and in fairness to the Minister one should say that our arguments were so strong that he accepted our point of view. I do not think there is anything wrong in paying a tribute to a Minister, from whatever side of the House he may come, who sees the wisdom of arguments advanced to him and introduces a new Clause which will affect both sections of the industry.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East that there are dangers in the Clause unless the licensing authority exercises a sensible balance. It is very easy to make representations to the effect that there is under-cutting, but today there are many services of a national character from the very nature of which it can be argued that one section, because it is serving an isolated part of the country, is giving a service at less than the normal cost. We have, however, argued many times that the duty of a nationalised industry is to provide a service on a national charge basis so far as possible so that isolated areas can get the service at as reasonable a price as the more fortunately situated thickly populated areas.
It is only a short time since we had a discussion on rural bus services. This is a case in point. Whoever provides a service in a rural area will have to provide it on the basis of loss. Whatever concern provides the service, whether it is a municipal, nationalised or private undertaking, it can be argued that it is providing a service to agricultural areas which is not in fair competition with some one else seeking to provide a similar service. Thus, the licensing authorities will have to hold a very fair balance. If the Clause is accepted, I hope they will strongly resist any attempt to make frivolous complaints and to cause difficulty for any section of the industry.
On the other hand, provided that the licensing authorities exercise the restraint and common sense which I believe they will, I do not entirely object to the principle of fair competition being insisted upon in the Bill. I have always argued that unless we have a measure of fair competition we shall have a system of cut-throat competition which will be bad not only for the industry and its service but for the personnel engaged in the industry. I will always support in this House a principle which is firmly based upon fair competition coupled with the application of fair wages and conditions of employment. The new Clause, apart from some of its disadvantages, will confer some blessings in that respect.
5.15 p.m.
We have spent a long time on the Bill in Standing Committee and in the House, and it is only fair to say that on many

matters the Minister has been very reasonable and anxious to meet the points which have legitimately been made. Much of the success of the Bill is due to the very fair way in which he has approached the problem. During our debates, apart from one or two of the highly political aspects of the Bill, there has been no question of party division. Whatever may be the shortcomings of the Bill, the values which it has are due largely to the wisdom of the Standing Committee and the wisdom of the Minister and the fair way in which he has dealt with the various propositions put forward from both sides of the House.

Mr. Norman Cole: I want to comment upon one or two points made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). We have again heard the hoary old story about private enterprise getting the cream of the routes. The hon. Member for Enfield, East can never have heard about the licensing authorities. That old story is not true. I can also tell the hon. Member that private enterprise, and, indeed, the British Transport Commission as well, is not frightened of fair competition, as the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) stated. Therefore, from the private enterprise point of view, there is no need to worry about competition arising from the Clause.
I want to reiterate a point I made in Standing Committee. The reason, I believe, why my right hon. Friend introduced his Clause in Standing Committee was that nothing can escape the fact that the largest transport organisation in the Kingdom, the Commission, has special advantages in regard to running certain routes at a loss. That was the feeling that some of us had in relation to the original Clause which is to be replaced by the present one. The Clause moved by the hon. Gentleman retains the safeguards. I have no objection to it, and I think my hon. Friends would support it, but nothing can alter the fact that, until my right hon. Friend dealt with the matter of free competition, there was always the danger that one large authority—in this case, the largest in the Kingdom, the B.T.C.—could, no doubt for legitimate reasons, afford to run certain routes at a non-competitive rate to the detriment of private enterprise, which we also want


to have a fair crack of the whip and a fair share of the industry.
I am glad that the new Clause will apply equally to both sections of the industry. I do not think private enterprise will be worried about it. It is prepared to take on all the advantages and responsibilities arising from proper free competition between nationalised industry and private enterprise.
We are here controlling what can be done by a large organisation in comparison with a smaller transport unit which has not the same advantages. The hon. Member for Enfield, East said that a number of the ordinary hauliers owned just a few vehicles. That is, by and large, the pattern of the industry. It is very proper that where there is one giant in an industry in competition, as we envisage in the future, with a great number of much smaller organisations, something should be provided in law to ensure that free competition exists and that the whole business does not get out of balance. I believe that my right hon. Friend will accept the principle of the Clause. Speaking for myself, I am very glad to see the Clause.

Mr. Watkinson: Despite the slight lack of enthusiasm with which the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davles) moved the new Clause, he stated the case very fairly, as did the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy). The Clause will be a useful addition to the Bill, which I believe is the opinion held on both sides.
We are moving, I hope, into an atmosphere in this great haulage industry where the arguments and divisions are largely settled and where British Road Services and other operators will settle down as ordinary employers and try to work together. I attach the utmost importance to that. British Road Services, the Road Haulage Association, and the other interests should now regard themselves as one, or as several parts of a very important industry, and should work together in that sense. The Clause is therefore a useful adjunct to that way of running the industry.
I do not think the Clause will be unduly difficult to operate. It gives a safeguard against any unfair use of it, but, of course, if the Clause were invoked we should have to place the facts before the licensing authority with all its experience.

It would be only if the licensing authority considered that there was a prima facie case to answer—and even then we should have to put the case to the licensing authority—that the authority could hold a public inquiry.
It is a fair Clause, and I am grateful to the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have put it down. They have improved it by the word "persistently", which makes very clear the abuse which it exists to counteract. I have much pleasure in accepting it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second Time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause,—(OFFENCES UNDER S. 12 OF ACT OF I930.)

Upon the trial of a person who is indicted for an offence under section eleven of the Act of 1930 (which relates to reckless or dangerous driving, it shall be lawful for the jury, if they are satisfied that he is guilty of an offence under section twelve (which relates to careless driving), to find him guilty of that offence whether or not the requirements of section twenty-one of the Act of 1930 (which relates to notice of prosecutions) has been satisfied as respects that offence.—[Mr. Royle.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

Mr. Charles Royle: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second Time.
This Clause deals with quite a different subject from any that we have been discussing this afternoon. I am happy to see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place. I feel sure that he will be interested in this subject. I sincerely hope that we shall have the support of both the hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Transport.
This is a simple matter. It demands only very short explanation and argument, but that does not take away its importance. If a defendant is charged before a court of summary jurisdiction under Section 11 of the 1930 Act for reckless or dangerous driving, the magistrates, after hearing the evidence, and if they feel that a case has not been made out on that charge but a case of careless driving has been proved, have power to reduce the charge accordingly, to deal with the defendant under Section 12, and to impose the appropriate penalty.
The anomaly is that if a case of reckless driving is committed to a higher court which sits with a jury, to quarter sessions


for example, the jury must find the defendant guilty or not guilty on the charge before it and has no power of reducing the charge. A defendant often gets away in a higher court with something of which he is guilty, careless driving, because a case of reckless or dangerous driving has not been strong enough in the eyes of the jury to convict him, unless the police start the case afresh by introducing the lesser charge before a court of summary jurisdiction.
In our system of law many serious matters are dealt with in this way. A jury can reduce a charge of murder to one of manslaughter. Surely it is not a very big thing to ask that a jury might reduce a charge of reckless and dangerous driving to one of careless driving. I put the new Clause to the House because of the enormous pressure of these cases on courts of summary jurisdiction. The Joint Under-Secretary knows as well as most hon. Members that a very important committee has recently been considering timesaving methods for minor offences and that we may hope to hear very shortly from the Home Secretary whether legislation will be introduced to put the Committee's recommendations into operation.
In the case I am raising the time of courts could be considerably saved by giving juries a right to do what magistrates in lower courts can do. I beg the Minister to consider this suggestion seriously and to accept the proposed new Clause, which I am sure will help the ends of justice.

Mr. James MacColl: I beg to second the Motion.
It is purely a coincidence that the three names attached to the proposed new Clause are those of Lancashire Members. There is no reason to think that there is more of a problem in Lancashire in this regard than there is anywhere else. It also happens that my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) and myself are members of the Council of the Magistrates' Association and have a very special interest in this matter. I do not pretend to have the experience of my hon. Friends in this matter, because in London, where I serve on the Commission of the Peace, we have little to do with traffic offences. Magistrates who have experience of traffic offences find that this is a real problem

and they are very much concerned about what happens to cases which they have heard in the early stages.
The Clause does not propose any great departure from precedent because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) has said, there are other cases in which it is possible for a jury which does not feel that a case is made out on a particular offence to record a conviction upon an alternative offence. My hon. Friend mentioned the reduction of murder to manslaughter. There is an even more germane analogy. Under the 1934 Act, where there is provision for courts of summary jurisdiction to reduce a charge of reckless driving to that of careless driving, there is also provision for a charge of manslaughter to be changed into one of reckless or dangerous driving.
If it is possible to move from the greatest offence to the next in that way, it should be possible and in accordance with common sense to be able to move from the middle to the lower of these three charges which are likely to be involved in a driving incident. Only some strange anomaly can have brought about the difference between the two. My hon. Friend's new Clause is a sensible proposition, and I have much pleasure in seconding its Second Reading.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: If my hon. Friend intends to accept the new Clause, as I hope he does, perhaps he will consider one point on the wording. It seems just possible that with the present wording a conviction might take place under Section 12 even though no notice of intended prose cution had been given under Section 11 That, of course, is not the intention of the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion and it would be unfortunate if it were to have that effect.

Mr. H. Hynd: To take up the point just made by the hon. Mew ber for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), it is, of course, the practice in the courts of summary jurisdiction for the two alternative charges to be taken and then, if the magistrates feel that there is not sufficient evidence to convict on the more serious charge, they usually dismiss it and proceed on the lesser charge. Unfortunately, if they decide to send the case


for trial on the graver count the alternative charge does not go to the court of quarter sessions, so that in that court there is only the more serious charge before the jury. It is rather galling for the magistrates afterwards to hear that the case has been completely dismissed in the higher court when, had it not been sent there, they might well have convicted on the lesser charge and inflicted the appropriate punishment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has said, it is an anomalous position. It is probably one of those little matters which were overlooked when the law was last altered. Parliament probably overlooked at the time the fact that both alternative charges did not go forward to the higher court. There is the safeguard in the 1930 Act that nobody can be faced with the alternative charge after fourteen days. That is quite a sensible idea but it does prevent the alternative charge being lodged in the higher court if the jury there decide that the case for dangerous driving has not been substantiated.
A further point that sometimes inhibits magistrates, and possibly juries, from convicting on the graver charge is, of course, the fact that a conviction for dangerous driving carries with it an automatic disqualification whereas a conviction for careless driving does not. Sometimes a jury, or the magistrates, feel that in all the circumstances they do not wish to disqualify someone and that, therefore, they should not convict on the more serious charge. There is undoubtedly that disinclination to convict of dangerous driving because of this automatic disqualification.
I believe that the Minister could quite safely accept the new Clause, or something on the same lines, as its only effect is to leave a certain amount of discretion to the jury in the higher court such as magistrates already have in the lower court. Magistrates do exercise that discretion, and I suggest that juries, under the guidance of the judge in the court of quarter sessions, could equally exercise a wise discretion whenever the circumstances justified it. I do not think that the Minister should have very much difficulty in accepting the proposed new Clause, although he may wish to alter the wording and just accept the principle.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am not at all sure about this new Clause. Having had a certain amount of experience in the criminal courts, particularly in regard to the reaction of the average jury to the average motoring offence, my feeling is that there is already a considerable reluctance—and here I must measure my words carefully—on the part of some juries in some districts to convict motorists of dangerous driving.
I think that it was the Lord Chief Justice who said in another place "No one has yet been able to find a way of depriving a British jury of its privilege of returning a perverse verdict," and the tendency to do so in regard to motoring offences is perhaps more manifest than it is in perhaps any other branch of the criminal law. What I fear is that if the Clause is passed there will be an open door for weak juries to say, "Well, all right—careless driving". It will be an easy let-out.
I fear, therefore, that so far from the Clause having the purpose intended by my hon. Friends—whose judgment in these matters, of course, I greatly respect—of securing the punishment of criminally bad driving in a manner which the interests of justice require, it might have the exactly opposite effect of weakening the force of the criminal law in its action against the driver guilty of committing such offences.
It is for that reason that I am very reluctant indeed to give the Clause my support. Indeed, I think that on the whole I am against it. My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) has put his finger on one of the factors which perhaps do discourage juries from convicting of dangerous driving—the power of disqualification. I am sure that we in this House feel satisfied that the weapon of disqualification is one which should very properly be exercised, and should perhaps be exercised more frequently by the criminal courts than is the case at present. I appreciate that there is a real difficulty confronting us, because it sometimes means that a weak jury returns a verdict which results in a guilty man getting off altogether, whereas my hon. Friends say that if the Clause is accepted there may at least be the chance of getting a conviction for careless driving. I fear,


however, that the result would be that the genuine case of dangerous driving would resuIt in a weak verdict of careless driving. Therefore, on the whole, I am against the Clause.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I rise in trepidation now, because there seems to be some difference of opinion. Nevertheless, I must throw in my weight with Lancashire as against my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), who comes from a district which I very highly respect. After some little experience extending over a fair period of years I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend. I think that he is right as to the reluctance of a jury to convict for dangerous driving, but I think that that fact should lead him to a conclusion quite different from that which he has adduced as a reason for rejecting the Clause.
The fact is that many juries, if they knew that they could return a verdict for reckless or negligent driving—or careless driving, which is even smaller—would return that verdict, because to a very considerable extent their minds are affected not only by the desire to prevent a person from losing his licence but by considerations of the safety of the public as a whole. If a person has been careless in driving I am quite certain that the average jury will come to the conclusion that they ought not to allow the offence to go by without some kind of penalty.
I stand with humility before those who practise in the higher courts. Although I do not always agree with their views, nevertheless I stand in their presence with considerable fear and anxiety. I think that if one were asked in the lower courts whether this provision enabling the court to return a verdict on the smaller offence is a good thing or not, the average person would say that it is a good thing and, in the interests of the public, that it is essential.
When the court comes to the conclusion that a person has been careless, and imposes even a small fine, or a warning, or even only orders him to pay the costs, it has the effect of preventing the person concerned from being careless in future—not entirely, obviously, but at least it has some effect in that direction.
I think the Minister would be well advised to concede the point that is being asked for here, in the interests not only of the public in general, but of the motorist themselves, because it would be a warning which would help them to retain or obtain a proper outlook on their duties towards the public when they are driving.

Mr. George Isaacs: I am afraid I am going to add a little more to the differences of opinion that have been expressed. I want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to think very carefully before he accepts this proposal.
In the area in which I have been serving as a magistrate, we act very diffently from the way in which magistrates act in other areas. I do not think that in my court the magistrates have the right to reduce the charge of dangerous driving to one of careless driving.

Mr. H. Hynd: Only if there is an alternative charge.

Mr. Isaacs: They have no right to reduce the charge. Usually what happens is that two charges are preferred. There is never any reduction of the first charge to the second charge. The accused person is told, "You are charged with driving in a manner dangerous to the public. There is also a charge of driving carelessly. We do not propose to deal with the charge of driving carelessly until this other charge has been disposed of. On a charge of driving in a manner dangerous to the public you have the right of being tried by a jury. Do you wish to be tried by a jury?"
If the accused says "Yes ", that settles it. The case goes to a jury. But the second charge remains adjourned sine die until the first charge is dealt with. That is how these matters are dealt with in Surrey, and, I believe, in many other courts. If the lower court decides that dangerous driving has not been proved, the case is dismissed. The other charge is then brought up and the accused is told, "You have this alternative charge to answer." It is not a question of reducing a charge. It is a question of dismissing one and then taking the other. If the case of dangerous driving goes to the sessions to be tried by a jury, and it is then dismissed, it automatically comes back to the lower court.
The only advantage that I can see in procedure such as is suggested in this proposed new Clause would be that the jury would know that there was an alternative charge, and it would be dealt with there instead of being sent back to the lower court. But there is the danger to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) referred. I am afraid that if the jury knew that they could throw out the dangerous driving charge and try the accused on the alternative one, too many cases of dangerous driving would be dismissed in favour of charges of careless driving.
5.45 p.m.
It is my experience that the most severe punishment which can be imposed on a motorist who has driven carelessly or dangerously is to suspend him from driving for a month or two. Driving about the roads as I have done for many years, I think the vast majority of the motorists in the country are careful, reasonable and courteous. It is the odd one here and there who acts carelessly, and it is the most careful drivers who would like to see that type of driver dealt with. The man who is driving carelessly is a risk not only to pedestrians but to other drivers. Therefore, people who drive carelessly ought to be taken off the road for a time.

Mr. McColl: Both my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) are confusing the issue. Surely there is power for the chairman of quarter sessions to disqualify on a conviction for careless driving. If the jury's verdict is perverse, and if a conviction is returned for careless driving, it remains with the chairman of quarter sessions to disqualify.

Mr. Isaacs: The careless driver does not go to the sessions. Careless driving is dealt with summarily by the justices. It is only in the case of dangerous driving where there is an option of going to the sessions.
In my experience, if a man has been fined £5 or £10, he will pay up with pleasure. But, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you should see the look on his face when he is told that he will be suspended from driving for a month. That is the safeguard for other road users. My hon.

Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) says that the fact of fining a man even a small sum of money or even giving him a caution has a great impression upon him. I say to him: Don't you believe it, brother. These men appear in court a second and third time, and it is only when the magistrate has an option of imposing a suspension that these people sit up and begin to take a bit of notice.
When I first saw this Clause I was inclined to favour it, on the ground that if a man was sent to the sessions with a second charge hanging over him the matter would be cleared up there and then. It would give the jury an opportunity to decide whether there ought to be some severity in the penalty. I think I have convinced myself—

Mr. H. Hynd: Can my right hon. Friend say whether in his experience he has ever heard any legal explanation of the difference between dangerous and careless driving?

Mr. Isaacs: I have heard legal explanations of the difference between careless and dangerous driving given by the Lord Chief Justice, but I still do not understand them.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): The hon. Member for Salford. West (Mr. Royle) began by stating the facts quite fairly and he provoked a most stimulating and instructive discussion, at the end of which I think the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) correctly stated the position, at least as I understand it, in relation to the higher and the lower courts.
This proposed new Clause has a reasonable objective which we all appreciate. The hon. Gentleman is concerned that the motorist who is acquitted on the more serious charge in the higher court should not get away with it on the lesser charge, which one of his hon. Friends thought was galling for the magistrates.
Perhaps I should deal first with the point made that juries can convict of an offence other than the offence charged. I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) also suggested that there are many charges on which juries can convict of an alternative. What, I think, should be stressed—I am sure the hon. Member will take the point


when I make it—is that wherever a jury now has power to convict of an offence other than the one charged, both those offences are indictable; for example, murder and manslaughter, larceny and receiving.
The difficulty here is just this: that careless driving is a summary offence not sufficiently grave to be made an indictable offence, and there is no precedent for giving juries power to convict of a summary offence. Where they have power to convict on the alternative, both the offences are indictable.
The real difficulty in which we become involved was put forward, with much more forensic persuasion than I can hope to achieve, by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones). There is, I think, substantial evidence to suggest—like him, I wish to choose very carefully my language on this point—that juries are known to be reluctant to convict of dangerous driving, and that if they are given the alternative of the lesser offence, that is to say, of careless driving, there will be a very strong tendency for them to take it on more occasions than perhaps the mover of the new Clause would desire. In other words, offered it, they will take the softer option.

Mr. Royle: I want to suggest to the Joint Under-Secretary and to my hon. and learned Friend that they have a lot less faith in British jurles than I have.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that I doubt the value of the jury system, he is doing me an injustice. I think the jury system is invaluable to secure the acquittal of the innocent. I am not certain that it is invaluable to secure the conviction of the guilty.

Mr. Deedes: I certainly will not be drawn into a discussion on the merits of the jury system. The point which is really relevant to the new Clause is this. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West is anxious—and the purpose of his new Clause really leads to this—that the motorist on either charge, and particularly on the charge of dangerous driving, shall not get less than his deserts, that there shall be no chance of his receiving a punishment less than the

punishment which he deserves. All I am saying is that there is evidence, factual evidence, as the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South has stated, that the consequence of the new Clause might be precisely to the opposite effect. It would perhaps lead to increasing difficulty in getting convictions for dangerous driving, and to more defendants electing to go for trial on charges of dangerous driving, which, of course, among other things, would tend to increase the work of the superior courts.
Perhaps I might add as a third, if subsidiary, factor that the effect of the Clause would increase the difficulties of summing up. because juries would have to be instructed that it is open to them to convict of careless driving, and the degree of negligence involved in the two offences would have to be distinguished. I do not seek to make heavy weather of that, but it is an additional factor which the House may wish to take into account.
I have no doubt that the principal objection, which I hope the House will accept, is to be found in the grounds first advanced by the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark. On those grounds, the House would do well to think twice before accepting the new Clause, and I hope the hon. Member for Salford, West will not press it.

Mr. Janner: Before the Joint Under-Secretary concludes, I should like information on one matter. The point has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) about cases being tried after there has been a discharge at quarter sessions on a charge of dangerous driving, the charge of careless driving being afterwards tried in the police court. Can the Joint Under-Secretary give us any idea how many such cases there are, or whether there are in fact very few? In my experience, I have not come across any in which that charge has been afterwards levelled. Has he any idea what the numbers are in this respect?

Mr. Deedes: Since the question is asked, perhaps I should say that I think the right hon. Gentleman was not quite right in saying that the case automatically went back to the lower court. My impression is that the answer to the question of


the hon. Member for Leicester, North- West (Mr. Janner) is that this is some thing which varies in different parts of
the country. I would certainly not like to give, or attempt to give, any statistical answer to his question.

Mr. Royle: I am not disposed to with draw the Motion.
Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 6 OF Acr OF 1934.)

In subsection (1) of section six of the Act of
1934 (which subsection provides that a driving licence shall not be granted unless the applicant satisfies the licensing authority that he has either at some time passed the prescribed test of competence to drive or at some time
before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, held such a licence or a driver's licence under the Motor Car Act, 1903, authorising him to drive vehicles of the class or description which he would be authorised
by the licence applied for to drive) for the words "before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four "there shall be substituted the words "during the period of ten years immediately preceding the date on which the licence applied for, if granted, would come into force" and after the word "licence" where that word secondly occurs there shall be inserted the words "(not being a provision allicence)".—[Mr. Skeffington. 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I Should perhaps again explain to the House that the new Clause which I am moving has the general support of the
London County Council and, I understand, of a number of other licensing authorities. I make it quite clear in the
terms of the Clause that the issue of provisional licences is not touched. As regards the issue of driving licences, Section 6 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, states that a driving licence may not be issued unless the applicant satisfies the authority on one of two grounds, either that he has passed the test of competence to drive a motor vehicle, or that he held a licence prior to the 1st April, 1934.
This condition was, no doubt, inserted in the 1934 Act when tests were first introduced, because it would have been
quite impossible, administratively, and practically to have arranged for all drivers of vehicles to be tested within a reasonable period. I imagine it was for that reason that the condition was put in the Act of 1934. Nevertheless that condition

is still a binding condition on the authorities which issue driving licences. Although in 20 years one would suppose that some review might have been made of this matter, nothing has occurred. The passage of this Bill seems to provide an
opportunity for rectifying a condition which is now very much out-of-date. 
6.0 p.m.
If a person does make application for a driving licence and says that he held a driving licence before Ist April, 1934, that means that he has not in fact driven a motor vehicle for more than 20 years. Road conditions since he drove have
changed very much indeed. There has been the change in the speed and design of motor vehicles and the change in road
conditions generally. Traffic conditions have become more chaotic; speeds have become much greater outside towns and
driving conditions very much worse in towns. That would lead one to suppose that the ability to drive a vehicle 22 years
ago is no criterion at all for the granting of a licence without a test today.
Therefore the new Clause proposes that instead of the words in the present Section 6 (1) of the 1934 Act, relating to having driven a motor vehicle before 1st April, I934, there should be inserted the words"
during the period of ten years immediately preceding the date on which the licence applied for,
That gives some latitude to those who have been experienced motorists. One could perhaps argue that even a ten-year interval between having driven a vehicle and today involves taking some risk, as to a driver's ability but at any rate it is a more reasonable risk than suggesting that a proper qualification for granting a licence is that a person drove a motor vehicle 22 years ago. That is the state of the law today. 
Another aspect of this matter is that some people claim to have had a motor vehicle licence before 1934, but probably did not have one. It is extraordinarily
difficult for many authorities to prove whether a licence was issued before 1934. Since the condition was first introduced records have not always been retained for convenient periods. Many local authority records were lost or destroyed during the war, and so there is a loophole for the person who may feel that he will not pass the test, by which he can get away
with it by claiming that he had a licence


before 1st April, 1934. I do not suggest that this is a very serious matter, but I think it is one which ought not to be overlooked when we are considering general questions of road safety and the consequence of those who drive motor vehicles.
As I have pointed out earlier, the London County Council supports this Clause. The experience of that authority is worth quoting, because it issues more driving licences than any other authority in the country—more than 660,000 last year. That authority finds that it gets some 250 applications a year from people claiming that, although they have not driven for 22 years, they did hold a licence before that date. As the law stands, neither that authority nor any other has any alternative but to issue a licence, but I know they issue some with considerable doubt. Certainly the very considerable changes in conditions since before 1943 should make it incumbent upon us to alter this condition and the passage of this Bill provides the opportunity.
I hope the Minister will feel that the time is opportune for a review of the matter and will feel disposed to accept the new Clause, or to give some undertaking to propose legislation on these lines.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has raised what undoubtedly is an important matter. The Ministry of Transport on a number of occasions in the past has wondered whether it was justifiable to continue indefinitely the provision of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, under which any person who held a driving licence before 1st April of that year could thereafter, for the rest of his natural life, take out a driving licence without being subject to a driving test.
By this Clause the hon. Member has raised the very strong case of someone who has in fact not taken out a driving licence for a period of ten years and who then elects to do so claiming that as he or she held a driving licence at some time before 1st April. 1934, he or she is entitled to obtain a driving licence without being subject to any test. The argument in principle in favour of the Clause

is a very strong one. It cannot be hi the interests of road safety to allow licences to be freely issued to persons who have not driven in this country for ten or more years and have never passed a driving test. It also adds very considerably to the bother local authorities are put to. I am not at all surprised to learn that London County Council supports the Clause.
The practice involves the keeping of records by local authorities and those records have to be searched in order to establish whether in fact at some time or other an applicant received a licence from an authority. It also opens the possibility of fraud because a person may make a statutory declaration that he held a licence and records may not be available. As the hon. Member pointed out, a number of records of local authorities were destroyed during the war. I therefore feel that the hon. Member has made a strong case for the Clause.
I am not quite sure that I would not prefer, since we are dealing with this matter, to go a little further. If the intention of the Clause is to ensure that anyone who allows ten years to elapse between the expiry of one driving licence and application for the next should be subjected to a driving test, it is evident that the Clause does not in fact effect that. Where people have allowed that period to elapse without obtaining a driving licence I do not think it unreasonable that, before obtaining another driving licence, they should accept the obligation of passing the driving test, like a new applicant. Indeed, with the ever-increasing congestion on our roads and the increasing speeds, and so on, the difficulty of driving a motor vehicle safely is constantly increasing.
Therefore, I am prepared to accept the spirit of the new Clause, but I think it would be desirable to go a little further. In the Amendment which we shall propose in another place, we should like to provide that in every case where a motorist has neglected to obtain a driving licence for ten years it should be a condition of the grant of a new licence after that interval of time that he or she should undergo the normal driving test. We have looked at this matter from the administrative point of view, and we are satisfied that there are not many cases of this kind and that such an Amendment would not throw any excessive burden upon the examiners.
It is, perhaps, unusual for the Government not only to accept an Amendment or a new Clause but to propose to go further, but I hope and believe that in the general interests of road safety this slight extension I have described will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Skeffington: I am not certain whether the right hon. Gentleman is inviting me to withdraw the Clause, but if he is, in view of the undertaking he has given, I shall be very happy to do so. I thought that this was the most reasonable form in which to put the new Clause, but I shall be only too happy if the matter can be dealt with in the way the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, and I think the licensing authorities will be happy too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(HELMETS TO BE WORN BY DRIVERS AND RIDERS OF MOTOR CYCLES.)

(1) The Minister may make regulations requiring persons driving motor cycles of a prescribed class or description on a road or who are carried in such circumstances as may be prescribed on or in such motor cycles while they are being driven on a road, to wear in accordance with the prescribed requirements helmets complying with the prescribed conditions.
(2) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) Any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any regulations made under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding ten Pounds.
(4) In !his section "motor cycles" mean vehicles which are classed as motor cycles in section two of the Act of 1930, and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made under this section.—[Mr. Nicholson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause deals with the very controversial matter of crash helmets for motor cyclists. It has two objects. The first is to enable the Minister to prescribe definite specifications for crash helmets, and the second is to make their use compulsory. When I say "enable" I refer

to the word "may" in subsection (1). As the House knows, the word "may" in an Act of Parliament does not mean "may." In an Act of Parliament it is mandatory.
I propose the new Clause for perfectly simple reasons. I believe it is the duty of every Member of the House to make what contribution he can towards the reduction of what is called "the toll of the roads." I have no doubt whatever that this Clause, if accepted, will reduce the number of deaths on the roads, and the number of serious injuries.
I do not propose to argue at any length the merits or demerits of crash helmets. I know full well that many motor cyclists have valid objections to them. They say they take away the joy of motor cycling. Many of them say that they give them headaches. In certain weather conditions they may make them sweat and thus make it more dangerous for them to ride their motor cycles. There are many other similar objections raised against them. I do indeed sympathise with them. I used to be a keen motor cyclist myself, and I am sure I should have had many of those objections.
Two facts remain, however, and they are incontrovertible, first, that crash helmets do reduce deaths and injuries, and, secondly—and very important it is that the Government are convinced of it. It is the official and often-declared policy of the Ministry of Transport to encourage the use of crash helmets and to exhort motor cyclists to adopt them. Indeed, in the Services and in Government employment the use of crash helmets by motor cyclists is obligatory, and the wonder is, therefore, that the Government do not at once accept the principle of the new Clause and make crash helmets compulsory for all motor cyclists.
The first object of the Clause is to instruct the Minister to issue regulations defining a crash helmet, prescribing its thickness, its hardness, its size, etc. I do not think that anybody in the House could have any objection to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster Mr. Nabarro), who will second the Motion, knows of a case that occurred in his locality only a few days ago, and he will refer to it, for it brings out the need o have crash helmets which really are rash helmets, and the disastrous consequences of failing to have them.
6.15 p.m.
The really controversial matter of the Clause is the compulsion. People say a man has a right to kill himself and that we should not protect the fool from his own folly. That raises philosophical questions which we cannot deal with at great length now. However, we cannot be logical. Parliament does not attempt to be logical in these matters. We pass legislation to prevent a man from drugging himself to death with dangerous drugs. Yet a man may drink himself to death. People may go on drinking themselves to death if they want to. We just cannot be logical.
However, a man is not in complete isolation. His death causes grief to his relatives and friends, and it may make for widowhood and the leaving of children orphans. The expense of treatment for injury in hospital falls on the State. More important still, the loss of valuable lives—amongst motor cyclists, mainly young lives—to the State at this time is one that cannot be ignored.
People say there are too many laws; they are against too many laws and regulations. It will probably be argued that motor cyclists suffer in crashes many other injuries than head injuries. Crashes result in the most ghastly injuries. In crashes motor cyclists are castrated: they break their legs. This new Clause may be the first step, it may be said, to the wearing of protective clothing which will mitigate the effects of crashes or ward off these ghastly injuries. I reply again that we cannot be logical, and I would point out that head injuries are an exceptional category. First, they are particularly bad in their consequences, and, secondly, they are far the easiest to guard against.
A third argument which, I suspect, will be raised by my right hon. Friend is that the enforcement of regulations of this sort will cast an undue burden on an already depleted police force. I, of course, am not capable of judging that as well as the Ministry is, but personally I do not think it would cast much of a burden on the police force. I do not think that the Clause would entail many prosecutions. As soon as it becomes known that the wearing of crash helmets is obligatory, as soon as a crash helmet becomes a normal part of the furniture of a motor bike, motor cyclists will

universally adopt them. Thus I do not think there would be many prosecutions, and I think that the argument of an undue burden being cast on the police is largely fallacious.
The House may ask me how many lives I think will be saved if the new Clause is adopted. Of course, I can give no answer. It is pure speculation. However, I do not think I shall be contradicted when I say that some lives will be saved. I do not think I shall be contradicted when I say that if it could be proved that five hundred lives would be saved the House would have no hesitation in adopting the new Clause. What number or estimate of lives to be saved would the House take as a starting point?
I was reading in the Bible a few days ago about how Abraham argued with the Almighty about the impending destruction of Sodom. The House will remember that Abraham asked the Almighty if he would spare Sodom if there were fifty just and righteous men in the city, and the Almighty said he would, but Abraham, fearing there might not be that number, asked the Almighty if he would spare the city for forty-five just men, and the Almighty said he would. There was a sort of Dutch auction, and finally Abraham obtained the Almighty's assurance that the city would be spared for the sake of ten just men. Unhappily, there were not so many just men, and Sodom was not spared.
If I could say that fifty lives would be saved, would the House not consider it desirable to adopt the new Clause? I say that some lives would be saved and a great deal of suffering and a great many injuries avoided. I suggest that if we are in earnest in the phrases which we constantly echo—that it is up to Parliament to do something serious about reducing the toll on the roads—this is an opportunity.
If the House fails to adopt the new Clause, hon. and right hon. Members can go home tonight knowing that, no doubt with good reasons, they have failed to take the perfectly good opportunity offered to them to save life and avoid injury and suffering. I see the valid objections, but I believe that the saving of life and the avoidance of suffering outweigh them all. This is an interesting subject from more than one point of view,


and I await the speeches of hon. Members and the Minister's reply with interest.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) was kind enough to make a short reference to a fatality in Kidderminster recently which attracted a good deal of attention in the national, provincial and local Press, but before I refer to that I want to mention from personal experience why I have always considered that it is a matter of the highest importance for any who ride in vehicles that are open, that is, not of a closed motor car type of construction, to have some form of protective headdress or gear.
As a young private soldier in the Regular Army about 1930, while serving in the first fully-mechanised battalion of the British Army at that time, on manoeuvres on Salisbury Plain, I was a machine-gunner on what was called a Carden-Lloyd tracked vehicle. It was an open vehicle, that is, without a top, and it had a rather dangerous tendency to overturn. A number of those vehicles collided and one or two overturned. The vehicles were largely experimental in character.
I was hurled out of one such vehicle, and I was saved from serious head injury because I was wearing a steel helmet. No doubt I should have lost my life had I not been wearing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "An argument against."] No, it is an argument for. In all seriousness, I would add that the driver of the vehicle in which I was riding, who was not wearing a steel helmet—which was not then obligatory in that type of vehicle—suffered severe concussion and was afterwards invalided out of the Army. I regarded it as very fortunate that he was not killed.
Many of us who have been motor cyclists have been thrown from a machine, and we know from personal experience that unless there is some sort of protection for the head there is real danger of concussion or of a fatality. I believe that a large number of motor cycles in this country are usefully driven by people travelling to and from work and so on, but, equally, large numbers of motor cycles are driven by youngsters, often recklessly, in pursuit of pleasure.
Many of these youngsters are not sufficiently responsible to recognise the great pain and suffering which they cause to relatives and others, and the inconvenience. trouble and expense which they cause to public authorities, notably the police, as a result of their irresponsibility in riding motor cycles, often at reckless speeds. I am not being unduly derogatory because I am conscious that most of us in our teens and early twenties have had a craze for speed, but I do regard it as a duty that the Government should provide protection for these persons who have not sufficient common sense to protect themselves.
The first point is that what we have been exhorting people to do by Ministerial statements and advice and otherwise, namely, that drivers of motor cycles, pillion riders and even those riding in sidecars, should wear protective helmets of one kind or another, should now in the terms of the Bill be made obligatory. The second point is a complementary matter and relates directly to the fatality in Kidderminster early in May, 1956, that is three or four weeks ago. This was what directed my attention to this problem, and brought me into close association with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham in seeking legislative powers, not only to make the wearing of helmets by motor cyclists obligatory, but also to enable the Minister to specify minimum standards of proficiency, durability and resistance for those helmets.
I suggest that there are three types of helmets with which the Minister would be concerned in this connection. First, there would be a steel helmet, secondly a non-ferrous alloy helmet, and, thirdly, a helmet made of a substitute material, not necessarily metallic in character. I believe a steel helmet not to be very valuable in this connection, because the danger is that a man might knock himself out or injure his head against the inside of the helmet. In any event, it is too heavy to be worn by the majority of men and women who ride motor cycles, although it provides good protection if there is suitable padding inside it.
The second type of helmet, made of non-ferrous alloy, has certain susceptibilities which might make it not very suitable in this connection, notably as it is


liable to fracture, though of course it has the inestimable advantage of being light. It is the third type of helmet with which the Minister ought to be particularly concerned, that is the one made of substitute material. I say this because of the fatality to which I referred and I should like to quote briefly from a local newspaper, the Kidderminster Shuttle. [Laughter.] I cannot understand the ribaldry. Kidderminster is the most famous carpet-manufacturing town in the world. A shuttle is an operative part of a carpet loom, hence the name of the local newspaper.
The following appeared in that newspaper on Friday, 11th May, under the headings, "Crash Helmet was of Cardboard; Rider Fractured His Skull; Coroner's Comments On Road Tragedy ":
A motor-cyclist killed in an accident in Stourport Road, Kidderminster, while wearing a crash helmet was found to have received two fractures of the skull, it was stated at an inquest at Kidderminster last Tuesday afternoon. A woman doctor said the crash helmet the rider was wearing was made of compressed cardboard and the North Worcestershire Coroner (Mr. Brian G. Evers) said it was most unfortunate that such helmets should be made and sold as they might give a false sense of security. The jury, in returning a verdict of ' Accidental Death' added a rider"—
and that is not another motor cycle rider—
urging that crash helmets should be standardised. The inquest was on Charles Arthur Pollit (45), a welder⁀
That is the type of case which causes a good deal of anxiety in the country.
Exhortation to motor cyclists to wear crash helmets is inadequate. The wearing should be made compulsory, but it would be valueless to make it so unless the Minister had powers to specify the structure of the crash helmets and the minimum standards of proficiency, durability and resistance that he considered suitable for general use by men, women and children whether as riders of motor cycles, pillion riders or as passengers in sidecars.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there should also be a maximum price imposed to prevent exploitation?

Mr. Nabarro: That is a matter for the President of the Board of Trade, for which undoubtedly he possesses powers. I would not favour any subsidy at the

expense of public funds in this matter. It is apposite to mention that a miner's helmet is sold for 2s. but is heavily subsidised by the National Coal Board to enable it to be sold for that amount. I do not believe that there is undue profiteering in the manufacture and sale of various types of crash helmets at the present time.

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps I can save the time of the Committee, because we still have a great deal of work before us, if I say now what is my view of this proposed Clause.
The first thing about which there is some misunderstanding, and which makes it difficult for me, is that the construction placed upon the Clause by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) and by me is not the same. Certainly I could not accept a mandatory Clause which would lay on me the duty, now or in the near future, to make it illegal not to wear a crash helmet. For one thing, the police have advised me that they could not enforce it. For another, it would be regarded as an intolerable burden until the general acceptance of crash helmets is more widespread, growing though it may be.
On the other hand, I see the benefit of wearing a crash helmet. Here, I must tell the House that casualties amongst motor cyclists not only remain heavy but, I am afraid, were 22 per cent, higher in 1955 than they were in 1954, so that it is a serious problem. To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I would say that I do not think that it would be right, on the whole, merely to prescribe standards, and it would be difficult to do so by legislation, unless I dealt also with the question of the wearing of a crash helmet.
Because I am impressed by the case made by my hon. Friends, and am even more impressed by the necessity of trying to do something to avoid severe casualties, I think that the fairest thing to do is to give an undertaking—if my hon. Friend will withdraw his Clause—to see whether, in another place, a Clause could be introduced making it clear that merely permissive powers are given to me, so that if the voluntary use of crash helmets does not continue to increase at a satisfactory rate, as it is increasing at the moment, I could at a later stage make a regulation which would make obligatory the wearing


of a crash helmet when riding a motor cycle.
I do not wish to take that upon me at this stage, and I wish to think about it carefully first. I must make it plain, however, that I could not use even purely permissive powers at the moment, not only because I am assured that the police cannot assume this extra burden, but because we must see whether the large increase in the voluntary use of crash helmets meets the need without my having to make the practice mandatory.

Mr. Nabarro: May I ask a question arising out of what my right hon. Friend has said? I appreciate the difficulty, from a Parliamentary point of view, of having a Statutory Instrument to prescribe minimum standards for crash helmets. Is not this a matter upon which the British Standards Institution could, relatively easily, get into touch with manufacturers, and from that basis could not my right hon. Friend act in the matter?

Mr. Watkinson: That is a valuable suggestion, and I will look into it carefully. However, if I introduce a Clause in another place, it will cover both wearing and standards, and that will be an even more powerful weapon.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I hope that the Minister will not introduce compulsion in relation to the wearing of crash helmets. I say that because I believe that the civilian population of this country is becoming so restricted by compulsion that, if this suggestion is accepted, I can see compulsion spreading in other directions.
It has been stated that people in the mining industry wear safety helmets, but that practice is not compulsory. I believe that we have reached a position where we ought to consider whether the ordinary member of society possesses average intelligence. We are already ensuring that young people shalll pass a test to prove their capability before taking a vehicle on the road. So I think that we should leave this matter as a voluntary one, instead of seeking to introduce more compulsion than there is at the moment for the people of this country, who are already so restricted in their movements.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I support strongly the views of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater). I want to ask my right hon. Friend a question. Should the Minister find it desirable to take permissive powers, will he give an assurance that these will be in such a form that any order made under them will come before the House, and be debated?

Mr. David Jones: Within the last two weeks there has been a fatal accident to a motor cyclist living in my constituency whilst travelling to his work as an attendant at one of the local hospitals. He was wearing a crash helmet. He collided with a vehicle and was killed. At the inquest a qualified motorcycle engineer gave evidence that the crash helmet was useless for the purpose for which it was sold, but that it carried a British Standards Institution certificate.
I have taken up the matter with the firm concerned, who have produced a copy of the certificate stating that the crash helmet met the specifications of the British Standards Institution. That matter is being discussed with the engineer by correspondence. He still maintains, however, that for the purpose of avoiding injury from a crash, the helmet is useless. How will it be possible to decide between those two conflicting opinions?
There is another danger, that if the Minister makes a regulation he will create an impression in the minds of motor-cyclists that the specified helmets are adequate for the purpose. In other words, he will create a false belief in their minds that they can take risks which otherwise they would not take. Therefore, if the Minister makes such a regulation as he contemplates, I hope he will exercise the greatest possible care not to create in the minds of motor cyclists a false belief that there is more safety than there really is.

Mr. R. Bell: I could not let this debate pass without agreeing in principle with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater). I feel that this is an entirely inappropriate subject for the use of compulsion. Here we have a case of a man or woman who goes on the roads and is not wearing a crash helmet. It may be foolish, but that individual puts nobody in danger except himself or herself.


There could not be a clearer case of the principle that it is not right in any general case to interfere with an adult person solely for what one believes to be his own good. As the hon. Member for Sedgefield put the point, the question is whether the ordinary member of society has average intelligence. One could carry that a stage further and ask whether he will have average intelligence if Parliament continues to take responsibility away from people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) said that a man is not alone in society, that he has parents and a family, and that others would also be bereaved by his death— that society would lose the lives of young people. But all these are arguments which could be advanced in defence of any interference with the liberty of the subject. No man is isolated, even when he makes any error of judgment whereby he deploys himself to less than his best advantage. He not only deprives himself of something, but also deprives his relatives and all those who take an interest in his welfare. If that is an argument for imposing on him by law a wise course of conduct, then of course the cause of liberty is lost.

Mr. Nabarro: While I do not disagree that there is a conflict of principle as to whether compulsion is desirable or otherwise, would not my hon. Friend agree that in protection of the very large number of motor cyclists who buy crash helmets, there ought to be Ministerial power to prescribe minimum standards of efficiency?

Mr. Bell: That is an entirely different matter, and my hon. Friend might well be right about that.
The basic effect of the new Clause would be to compel people to wear crash helmets, and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham said that we cannot be too logical in these matters. My hon. Friend said that we do not let a man drug himself to death, but that is not true; we do. It is not an offence for a man to drug himself to death; it is not an offence to buy dangerous drugs. It is an offence to sell them without proper authority, and that is the dividing line which our law has always laid down and accepted.
We prevent people from doing wrong things which may damage others, but, though one cannot be absolute, because there may be special exceptions here and there, in general we do not prevent adult people of normal intelligence, by which I mean people not certified under the appropriate Acts, from doing those things. We do not try to compel them by law to be sensible, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not delude himself by taking a permissive power. A permissive power is either used or it is not used. If it is used, it then becomes, so far as the subject is concerned, a compulsory power. The only difference between "permissive" and "mandatory" is the difference that it rests with my right hon. Friend whether he shall use it or not, but the effect on the subject is precisely the same.
With all respect to my hon. Friend, who supports me in general on this, I say that the Statutory Instrument is not much of a safeguard. We know what happens in relation to Statutory Instruments. They come before the House at 10 o'clock at night, when the party Whips are put on, we cannot amend them and we either have to vote against the Government or let them go through. That proposal seems to me to be useless as a safeguard. I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to embark on this dangerous course.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I too hope that the Minister of Transport will think very carefully before he brings in regulations making compulsory the wearing of crash helmets. We are all aware that the accident rate for motor cyclists themselves, and for other users of the road on account of motor cyclists, is tremendous. The 1954 figures show that there were 15,000 serious accidents to motor cyclists or people riding pillion with them, and that 1,100 people were killed. The Minister of Transport tells us that the figures for 1955 are substantially worse, and I imagine that they are growing.
Therefore, all of us must be very much concerned with doing whatever we can to prevent this high toll of accidents to motor cyclists themselves and to other users of the roads through actions taken by motor cyclists. But when we come to the question of prescribing a particular form of clothing for these road users, and making it a penal offence not to wear


that particular form of clothing, I think we must stop for a moment and consider how far we are going and whether we are doing right, from the point of view of the rights of the individual.
6.45 p.m.
If nothing else at all could be done to reduce the number of casualties to motor cyclists except by making regulations of this sort, I think we might say "Well, it has got to be done," but I do not believe that that is so at all. I think that by continuing propaganda—and one of my chief complaints against the Ministry of Transport is that its general educational activities have been far below what they ought to he, in view of the number of road accidents taking place nowadays—a great deal of good could be done.
I think that by substantial propaganda by the Ministry, by the sellers of motor cycles and everybody concerned, practically every motor cyclist would be wearing a crash helmet in a few years' time. I think it can be done, and, moreover, I think it is more likely to be done if we can be assured that all the crash helmets sold are really effective. We do not want cases, such as have been quoted, of crash helmets being made of compressed card-board, which will cause many motor cylists who thought of buying crash helmets to consider whether it is worth while paying out quite a sum of money for a very uncomfortable helmet which might not be of any use after all.
The first thing to be done is for some action to be taken by the Government —the Board of Trade, it may be, though I am not sure which authority it should be—making it perfectly clear to every motor cyclist when he is buying a crash helmet that he is buying something which is really effective, which could save his life if he were involved in an accident.
There is a further point here, which has already been made by one hon. Member. It is true that the wearing or non-wearing of the crash helmet is a matter which will affect the motor cyclist alone, and not pedestrians or other users of the road, so that if a motor cyclist chooses not to wear a helmet, in spite of all the propaganda and all the pressure which has been put upon him, he will not in fact be causing the death or injury of anybody else but himself. That is a point to bear in mind. Therefore, by

insisting on everybody wearing crash helmets, we shall not be reducing casualties on the roads, except those of motor cyclists themselves.
It is different introducing regulations providing that the motor cycle must conform to certain mechanical principles, having lights and brakes in good condition. All sorts of regulations can be made insisting on conditions pertaining to the motor cycle, because if something goes wrong with the motor cycle and an accident is caused, it will involve other cars and other people on the road, but if an injury takes place as a result of the motor cyclist not wearing some particular clothing, it is only the motor cyclist who is involved.
Therefore, I would consider that this proposal is the last step which the Government ought to take. It may be that the time will come when they will have to take that step, but I would much rather wait a little longer before incorporating in the Bill a proposal which offends deeply our general feelings about interference with personal liberty, which was the point put forward very effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedge-field (Mr. Slater). I would much rather that the Government took the other actions which are open to them in order to effect a reduction in the number of accidents concerning motor cyclists.
There is only one respect in which, in fact, the death of a motor cyclist affects other people than motor cyclists, and that is under a Clause in this Bill of which the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) is well aware and to which he is very strongly opposed, though I think he is entirely wrong. This is Clause 7, which allows the imposition of a sentence of up to five years in prison for the killing of a man as a result of a road accident.
It may well be that a man may be killed because he is not wearing a crash helmet, in which case the motorist may have to suffer five years' imprisonment. If the man is wearing a crash helmet and is not killed, but the motorist was driving equally dangerously, he can get a sentence of only two years' imprisonment, which is a ridiculous situation. That is something that we have introduced into the Bill which I think is a grave mistake. In that respect, it is true that somebody else may suffer. A motorist involved in


an accident may suffer because a motor cyclist is not wearing a crash helmet when he ought to be doing so.
Apart from that, for the reasons which I have given, I would again, speaking personally on this matter—some of my hon. Friends may have different views, as so many of us have on all these road safety matters—I urge the Government to go very cautiously, and to take all the other steps which are open to them— there is a considerable number—to ensure that crash helmets are worn by motor cyclists before going so far as to make it compulsory and a criminal offence for them not to wear one.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I hope that the Minister will now realise, from the discussion which has taken place, that there is very strong opposition to the suggested compulsion.

Mr. Nabarro: But not to minimum standards for helmets?

Mr. Harris: Not to minimum standards for helmets. Many hon. Members fully agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said on that subject.
On the subject of compulsion, the majority of hon. Members would have very strong feelings if the Minister went ahead with such a proposal. We feel that it would be an infringement of the personal liberty of the individual. Unhappily, the Minister stepped into the debate a fraction too quickly before hearing the views of many hon. Members who feel very strongly about the matter.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) is not going to withdraw the Clause on the understanding that the Minister is definitely going to meet him part of the way in another place, because many of my hon. Friends and I would feel that that would be a very unfortunate undertaking indeed.

Mr. Nicholson: I should like to reply to some of the points which have been raised in this short but interesting debate. I am very much surprised at the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell). I am not a lawyer, but I believe that a man's life is not his own property. There is such a felony as felo de se. In

law, in this country a man's life is never regarded as his own property. The tocsin which my hon. Friend sounded in favour of individual liberty is trifling with a most important subject.
As I have said already, we cannot apply logic to this matter. How does my hon. Friend square his views about saving people from their own folly when he takes into consideration the regulations made to protect pedestrians from stepping out in front of motor cars? That precaution is taken partly to save the lives of pedestrians and to save their relations from grief. It is also taken partly to save a motorist from having to bear throughout his life the thought that he has been responsible for somebody else's death. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) brought out a very important point in that connection.
What about passengers on a motor cycle or in a light three-wheeled car, which these regulations could cover? Are pillion riders to have no consideration? Is a girl sitting behind a man on a motor cycle to be told that her life does not matter, that she is a fool and is herself throwing her life away because she rides behind a careless driver? The whole matter is riddled with inconsistency and illogicality, and it is bound to be.
If anybody went mountaineering with manifestly rotten or inadequate rope and was killed, the coroner would have something very strong to say about it.

Mr. David Weitzman: Is it not pertinent that under the Factories Acts we make specific provision against workmen taking risks carelessly?

Mr. Nicholson: I am very grateful for that intervention, which is most germane.
Let us accept the fact that we cannot treat this matter from the point of view of pure logic or pure consistency. Thank goodness that as a nation we suspect logic, and quite rightly so. We must approach the matter from a severely practical aspect.
We should not necessarily allow people to go around the country killing or injuring their passengers and other people, causing people to bear a great sense of guilt and resulting in heavy sentences of


imprisonment being passed upon people who run into them, causing loss and grief to others, and loss to the nation of valuable lives. If it is reasonable, rational, and likely to be successful, to compel, them to take safety precautions, let us by all means do so.
I frankly admit that I am not absolutely convinced that the time has now come for compulsory regulations. Like the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, I should like a great propaganda campaign instituted before having recourse to regulations. I think that the Minister has taken the wise and statesmanlike course. I do not know whether or not he agrees with me in interpreting "may" in an Act as mandatory. I think that I am right in that interpretation. No Minister would dare not to issue regulations if an Act says that he "may" do so, for the implication is that he must. I believe that the Minister is taking the right course in undertaking to consider—I do not take it as a definite pledge to take action—whether he can introduce, in another place, a Clause to give him genuinely permissive powers if, after the expiration of a certain period, he comes to the conclusion that exhortation has failed, and to give him power to propose minimum standards for crash helmets. I do not take the point that it will induce a false sense of security. People are more intelligent than that.
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said. I gladly accept his assurance and promise, and I beg to ask leave

Mr. Watkinson: Before my hon. Friend concludes, I want us to be clear about this matter. The promise that I gave was that I would give the matter very careful consideration. Obviously I must give careful consideration to anything which may save lives on the roads, particularly in this very dangerous sector. However, as my hon. Friend said, it was not an implicit pledge to introduce anything into another place. I merely said that I would consider the matter carefully.

Mr. Nicholson: My right hon. Friend need not have said that. I put exactly that interpretation upon his words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, with-drawn.

New Clause.—(DIESEL VEHICLES.)

(1) On and after the first day of January, 1965 no diesel vehicle shall be used on any public road in the metropolitan police district.
(2) Any person using a diesel vehicle in contravention of this section shall upon conviction be liable to a fine for a first offence not exceeding £10, and for a second or subsequent offence not exceeding £50.—[Mr. R. Bell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. R. Bell: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
With this Clause, we come to a very different aspect of road traffic. Hitherto we have mainly been discussing traffic from the point of view of its regulation on the roads. Now for a few minutes I invite the attention of the House to a different aspect, that of the noise and fumes resulting from a certain class of traffic.
At the outset, I would say that the form taken by my Clause is not one to which I attach particular importance. My right hon. Friend may well feel that the period of nine years which I propose is not a practical one. He may even feel that a prohibition in this form is itself not practicable. I have merely tabled my Clause in order to draw attention to the problem existing in relation to diesel vehicles.
7.0 p.m.
The context in which I move the Second Reading of this new Clause is that the London Transport Executive has decided to replace 1,800 electric trolley buses by diesel vehicles. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Shame"] Hon. Members say "Shame," and I agree. That has caused a good deal of concern to many who are interested in the health of people who live in or use the Metropolis. A disadvantage of the diesel vehicle in ordinary road safety is that it tends to belch out great clouds of black smoke through which one simply cannot see. I know that a diesel vehicle does that only when it is in bad condition. I am sorry to say that my experience is that very many diesel vehicles are in bad condition; especially is this seen when diesel lorries are going up hill. Clouds of black smoke coming from lorries or buses going up hill are not only very unpleasant but have a definite significance in road safety.
A second factor is the noise made by diesel vehicles when crammed together in London. There is an enormous number


of diesel vehicles in London. One can be sentimental about the roar of London traffic, as I believe the British Broadcasting Corporation becomes so regularly, but it is not something of which we should be proud, nor something which should encourage us to replace silent vehicles with noisy ones. We recently had a debate about the evils of noise and about the very real harm it does to the populations of our great cities in its ever-rising crescendo. I should be sorry if we did anything to increase it.
The main purpose of the Clause is to draw attention to the injury to property and health caused by fumes from diesel vehicles. The streets of London receive a good deal of atmospheric pollution, and the House has recently given attention to that. However, the pollution which comes from our domestic fires and other sources of burning at least comes out at roof-top level, but the pollution that comes from the exhausts of motor vehicles comes out at a very low level, a matter of inches above the ground.
The streets of London are narrow canyons in which this pollution is gathered, held and where, on still days, it reaches an appalling concentration. The danger to property is, of course, well known. I am told that in the central areas of London windows are found to have a film of oil which comes from the exhausts of diesel buses. Since diesel buses have become universal in London, window cleaners have noticed that in the City and central areas they have to remove a film of oil before they can clean windows.
If films of oil form on glass, they also form on stonework and in the lungs of those who use the streets. That is the disturbing point in all this. The fumes are exceedingly foull smelling and unpleasant. That might be borne, but there can be no reasonable doubt that they are very injurious to health. I do not want to be alarmist, nor to exaggerate, because that would be very wrong, but I am sure that the fumes from traffic play a very large part in causing respiratory diseases in people in London.
Bronchitis is unquestionably increased and exacerbated by vehicle exhaust fumes. Above all, there is the problem of lung cancer. A few weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health again drew our attention to the truly

alarming figures of the increase of that disease. He reminded us that cigarette smoking might well be a contributory factor in causing it, but there is more than a suspicion that vehicle exhaust fumes also play a large part in the generation of this disease among city dwellers.
The number of non-smokers who die of cancer of the lung is nearly ten times as high in the cities as it is in the country-side. The death rate per hundred thousand from lung cancer is 14 in rural areas and 131 in urban areas. We might obviously disagree—indeed, no one can be sure—what the real explanation of that is, but it is a basic fact that more than nine times as many people in the cities die of lung cancer as die of it in the country-side. There can be very little doubt that in one way or another that is due to the atmospheric pollution of the cities.
Research carried out here and in the United States of America has raised a very strong suspicion that vehicle exhaust fumes and, in particular, diesel fumes are one of the main causes. There can be no doubt that benzpyrene is a constituent of diesel exhaust gases even when no black smoke is visible. Benzpyrene is an undoubted carcinogenic agent. That has attracted so much attention that last June the British Medical Association, at its annual representative meeting, passed a resolution which it sent to the Ministry of Transport. It read:
This meeting of the representative body of the British Medical Association urges the Council of the B.M.A. to draw the attention of transport authorities to the possible dangers of fumes from diesel engines; to the remarkable coincidence between the increased use of diesel oil for transport and the rise in mortality from lung cancer and other respiratory diseases; and views with alarm the forthcoming replacement, in London, of 1,800 electric trolley buses by diesel-engined vehicles.
That resolution was forwarded to my right hon. Friend and the Council of the B.M.A. pointed out to the Ministry that it would be most unfortunate if research proved that diesel fumes were a contributory cause of lung cancer, after a large scale programme of replacement of trolley buses by diesel engined vehicles.
I am sorry to say that the Ministry, passing on the decision of London Transport Executive, after expressing sympathy with research in this subject and its interest in it, nevertheless said that


London Transport was sticking to its decision. Its letter went on:

"Whatever the outcome of the research now being undertaken, it seems very doubtful whether the oil buses which will replace the trolley buses will make much difference to the London atmosphere or the health of Londoners. London Transport's present fleet of buses and coaches which numbers more than 8,000 is already operating exclusively on diesel oil. When one considers in addition the number of other diesel-engined road vehicles which can now be seen in the London area the planned addition to the Executive's fleet of buses is seen to be of little significance.
The Government naturally take the closest interest in the question of atmospheric pollution, but your Association"—

that is, the British Medical Association—
will understand that it will be impossible for my Minister to hold up the normal commercial development of road vehicles without much more definite information as to its effect upon public health than is at present available.
My only comment upon that is that, taking into account the degree of suspicion which has been aroused; the amount of evidence which is available as to the possible danger from diesel fumes —inconclusive as it is; just as is the evidence about cigarette smoking—and also the very strong statistical evidence that nine times as many people die from lung cancer in the towns as in the country, together with strong medical evidence from various sources, such as the resolution of the British Medical Association, the burden of proof is shifted. I submit that it is for London Transport Executive and my right hon. Friend, as answerable in this House, to show that this very large change which has been planned will not be harmful to the health of the people of this city.
Nobody can suggest that electric trolley-buses cause cancer or bronchitis. They cause no fumes, and make no noise. It is not good enough to say, "The atmosphere of the metropolis is already heavily polluted, and a little more will not matter very much. We already have 8.000 public diesel vehicles on the roads, plus the private ones, and therefore another 2,000 will not make any difference. It is so bad that we cannot make it worse." That may be a slight overstatement of the position, but it is the main line of the argument.
My purpose in moving the Clause is not to cling to the form of it; it is not for a private Member to draft a

Clause of this kind in a practical form I am merely raising the point, and my object in doing so is to place the onus of proof upon those who wish to increase the use of diesel propulsion in the metropolis, so that if they cannot discharge that burden over a period of, say, ten years, the mounting danger to public health should no longer be permitted.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I beg to second the Motion.
I also believe that the increasing pollution of the streets of our large cities by the operation of diesel-driven vehicles is a menace which has grown, is growing, and should be diminished. The advantage of the proposed new Clause would be that the number of diesel-driven vehicles in the Metropolitan police area would be tremendously diminished.
I do not propose to speak for very long upon this matter. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) has already referred to the controversy which has risen within the ranks of the British Medical Association, and I do not need to overstress the possible relationship between the use of the diesel vehicle and lung cancer. At one time I received some kind of scientific training, and I am always reluctant to commit myself to any theory or proposition without abundant proof. Nevertheless, with proper scientific caution, I still believe that the investigations which have been carried out so far show that there are grounds, at least, for grave suspicion that fumes from diesel vehicles are a danger to public health.
It is a tragedy for the comfort of the people in our crowded cities that much of this suffering from diesel vehicles is unnecessary. In large-scale passenger transport we have available an alternative and plentiful source of energy, namely, electricity.

Mr. Sparks: The trolley bus.

Mr. Palmer: Yes, the trolley bus—or, I would go so far as to say the much criticised and much-abused tramcar. At least that had a soul. All that the diesel bus has is a smell.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has left the Chamber—I am sure that his absence is temporary—because on one occasion,


in the House, in view of my unashamed interest in electrical matters, he accused me of being an electrical fanatic. I plead guilty to that charge, but I believe that in being an electrical fanatic I am on the side of the angels, and not of the other side. For large-scale passenger transport electricity is cheap, convenient and completely clean.

Mr. Sparks: That is not true of the trolley bus.

Mr. Palmer: My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) talks about the trolley bus. If that vehicle is not popular with some experts of the London Transport Executive, it is pretty popular with the people who use it.

Mr. Sparks: It certainly is not in my constituency.

Mr. Palmer: I live in another part of the metropolitan police area. In the Wimbledon district there is a good service of trolley buses on Worple Road, on the way to Kingston. If the London Transport Executive took that service off, I believe that there would be many complaints from the public. Another advantake of the electric passenger vehicle is that the energy used is produced from home sources. It is produced from coal and, in the future, it will be produced increasingly from another source, which, for practical purposes, we can also regard as a home source, namely, nuclear fission. If electricity is used our country will be therefore less dependent upon imported fuel, which is an extremely important consideration.
7.15 p.m.
Last week, during the Parliamentary Recess, I was doing work of a kind at Torquay, at the 1956 British Electrical Power Convention. The main theme of the Convention this year was electricity and transport. Discussions went on about the great part that electricity will very soon play in the electrification of the railways, especially the main line routes. It would be rather ironical now if our railways were to become cleaner through the use of electricity while our streets became much dirtier because of the extended use of oil fuels.
The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South referred to the question of maintenance and the suggestion that

diesel vehicles caused trouble purely because of lack of care. I agree with his comment that in that case there must be a vast number of vehicles on our roads which are extremely badly maintained. I know that trouble is often caused by drivers tampering with the fuel injection systems of diesel engines, but the engine permits of this tampering, and I feel that it is no answer to say that the trouble is caused because the engine is not working properly. The point is that these diesel vehicles are capable of being worked badly.
It might seem that the Clause, as worded, is a little drastic. It proposes to ban these vehicles completely from the Greater London area. It entails the complete banning of these vehicles within nine years. I am not so worried about that because, after all, nine years is quite a period of time, and should give ample opportunity for the owners of these vehicles, even the London Transport Executive, to mend and improve their ways and not to continue with the extension of a system of public transport which is, as I said at the beginning, probably a menace to public health and certainly a menace to public comfort.

Mr. Molson: A revolutionary Clause of this kind could be accepted by the Government only if the need for it was abundantly made out. It would, indeed, have a most revolutionary effect at the present time, because the tendency for a number of years past has been for diesel engines progressively to replace petrol engines. At the present time, of the vehicles registered with the London County Council, 94 per cent. of the buses and coaches with more than 14 seats, 49 per cent. of the taxis and 54 per cent. of the heavy goods vehicles are propelled by diesel engines. The tendency is for the proportion of diesel engines to increase. This is for the engineering reason that diesel oil is, on the whole, a more efficient propellant than petrol. If the House were to accept this Clause, it would not only completely dislocate London Transport but also have a most serious effect upon both the heavy and light motor production industry in this country. It would, therefore, be necesssary for those who support the Clause to show that the effect of diesel fumes upon the national health was of a most serious kind.
I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), and I confess that I was astonished that any lawyer should put forward a proposal of this kind on such extraordinarily inadequate evidence. He began by saying that he was quite sure. That is no reason why the House should be quite sure. He said that there was more than a suspicion that these fumes were causing cancer, and later he went on to suggest that the evidence was such as to justify us in taking action. This matter is being investigated both by the Fuel Research Station and the Medical Research Council and, as yet, there is no evidence that exhaust fumes from diesel driven vehicles have any measurable effect on the health of those who breathe them.
That is the present position, and unless and until research is able to establish the need for something of this kind, it quite clearly would he impossible for the Government to accept the Clause. The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) quoted from a letter written by my Department in reply to the petition. I must say that it was very agreeable to me to hear such a very sensible letter publicly presented.

Mr. R. Bell: Would my right hon. Friend say that the British Medical Association passed a resolution and sent it to him without any evidence?

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I am afraid that I cannot support the new Clause, largely because of some of the reasons which were advanced in support of it. It was fairly obvious that to some extent it was a battle between electric and diesel traction; and when my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) went on to stress the efficiency of electric traction, in so far as he referred to the trolley buses in London, I say that there he was absolutely right off the rails, or, shall I say, right off the wires.
One of the main reasons for replacing electric traction trolley buses by diesel-driven vehicles arises out of the problem of mobility and the difficulties of operation which experience has proved over the years. Trolley buses are responsible for a considerable amount of congestion and delay on many of the roads. If any hon. Member does not agree with that statement he has only to come to my constituency at any time he wishes, and

I will introduce to him hundreds if not thousands of workpeople who have to use trolley buses to get to and from their work. One has only to hear what they have to say about the service to be absolutely convinced.
My local authority has for years been worrying the London Transport authority to provide an efficient road service on what is known as the 660 route. That is a trolley bus route which runs from Finchley, through Cricklewood, Willesden, Acton and Shepherds Bush to Hammersmith. That route is through some of the densest parts of west London. The only answer to this problem of operation is to take them off the roads and replace them with—What? There is only one alternative—dieseldriven vehicles. Thousands of workpeople in my constituency want them because those vehicles have greater mobility, there is not the tendency to congestion, and the service becomes more regular.
Therefore, this is a most reactionary proposal which my hon. Friend is supporting. I would ask him and the hon. Member who moved this new Clause to spend a few days with the London Transport Executive to see the effect on routes operated by diesel vehicles and electric trolley buses. There is no question whatever that the diesel method, or even the petrol method, is far superior in efficiency and operation and in the organisation of London's traffic. If my hon. Friend can show an alternative method of propelling a vehicle by electric power without the use of arms attached to wires—I do not know whether that can be done; he says that he knows something about science, and there is a problem for him—he will be a very famous man one day.

Mr. Palmer: Perhaps I shall.

Mr. Sparks: I feel that no substantial case has been made for the new Clause. There may or may not be something in the argument on medical grounds, but we cannot reach a judgment by considering only one small aspect of the problem. The problem is a major one of traffic organisation and operation, not only in the greatest city in the world but throughout the country. I am surprised that my hon. Friend should wish to go back to the days of the tram; I thought that trams had been dead a long time.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Palmer: In Europe generally, where they have very much experience of these traffic problems, the use of trams is extending, and one would not suggest that the transport systems in many large European cities are inefficient because of the increasing use of trams.

Mr. Sparks: Well, in small villages and rural areas it does not matter very much, but it is a different problem in congested areas like the Metropolis. Imagine running trams down Oxford Street or Regent Street, or any of the main arteries—or even trolley buses.
The policy of the London Transport Executive is to extend the use of diesel vehicles and largely to supplant the trolley-bus services where they have proved to be inadequate. Trolley-buses may serve a useful purpose here and there, for instance in the little village of Wimbledon, but where it has been demonstrated that this method of operation creates traffic delays and problems and increases the dangerous conditions on the roads, there is a sound case for replacing them by diesel vehicles. We should be committing ourselves to a wrong and rash policy if we attempted to suppress this new development, which is giving us speedier transport and greater mobility in operation, particularly in the Metropolis and other large centres of population.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I want to oppose the new Clause on two grounds which have not so far been fully detailed. The Clause would have the effect of forcing London Transport entirely to replace its omnibuses by 1st January, 1965. It would also mean that all the many coaches which come into the London area and a very large number of lorries would have to be replaced before that date. We should need a very good reason before we took a revolutionary step of that sort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) gave as his reason the volume of fumes and black smoke, as he described it, coming from diesel vehicles. and, perhaps without realising it, he gave the explanation why that is happening; he said the worst offenders were lorries being driven uphill. Did he appreciate that buses being driven uphill do not emit black smoke, and that there is a great difference between the manner in which diesel lorries and diesel

buses are operated, which I think possibly arises from the economics of the situation?
A bus owner is particularly anxious that his fuel consumption should be economic, and he therefore pays attention to maintenance and to the manner in which the fuel is used. A lorry owner, however, and a lorry driver in particular, gives much less thought to that matter; his great anxiety is to get the greatest amount of power. particularly going uphill.
I am afraid it is a fact that quite a number of drivers tamper with the fuel setting of their diesel lorries, so that an excessive amount of fuel is used, in order to enable the driver to get a little more power. Possibly the owner does not take much notice of that either; so long as the vehicle gets to its destination quickly that is all he worries about, because any extra charges can be passed on elsewhere, which is not the case with a bus. If properly maintained and worked, the diesel vehicle gives off less fumes than a petrol lorry.
I will try to deal with the question of the effect on health as shortly as possible, because we have heard the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's views on the matter. Far from there being no evidence at all of the effect of diesel fumes on lung cancer, such evidence as exists suggests strongly the opinion that diesel fumes have nothing whatever to do with lung cancer.

Mr. E. Partridge: Oh.

Mr. Wilson: The greatest authority on this matter is probably Dr. Richard Doll, of the Statistical Research Unit of the Medical Research Council. On 12th December last that authority wrote a letter which has been widely mentioned in the technical Press. It was referred to in Motor Transport on 30th December and in Modern Transport on 3Ist December. I have a copy of the letter here. It has been referred to in the House, but as there seems to be some doubt about this matter I think it right that I should make a quotation from it.
The letter is from Dr. Doll to one of the transport organisations connected with buses, and states:
Some seven years ago Professor Bradford Hill and I began a study of the causes of


lung cancer. It had become apparent that the disease was rapidly increasing in incidence and this suggested that one or more of the causes might be found in those conditions of the environment which had become more prevalent in the last 50 years. When we began the investigation we listed those conditions which, on these grounds, seemed potentially capable of being associated with the disease and tried to find if there was any evidence that people who were specially exposed to them were more susceptible to lung cancer.
The results of our investigations and of many similar ones in other countries have been to demonstrate that there is a close relationship between the number of cigarettes smoked a day and the liability to lung cancer, and to confirm, what was known previously from the work of Stocks and others, that people who lived in urban areas were also more susceptible to the disease (though the relationship to urban dwelling did not appear to be as close as the relationship to cigarette smoking).
We failed to demonstrate that the relationship to urban dwelling was due to any specific major occupations although it is, of course, well known that a few occupations, which do not altogether employ more than a small proportion of the total population, carry with them a special risk of the disease. In particular, we did not find any greater proportion of the patients with lung cancer than of patients with other diseases who had been employed in such occupations as the driving of cars, lorries or buses, or who had worked on the roads or in garages. This would suggest that such occupations carry no specific risk of lung cancer. Our observation agrees with observations made by other workers, as for example, Wynder and Graham in the United States, who have also failed to find an excessively high proportion of men with the occupations specified above amongst lung cancer patients.
In the absence of any direct evidence to suggest that persons specifically exposed to diesel or other motor fumes, by reason of their occupation, suffer any undue liability to the disease, it would not seem reasonable to attribute the excess mortality from lung cancer which is recorded in towns to pollution of the air with exhaust vapours.
On more general grounds"—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Wilson: This is an important matter. The letter continues—
On more general grounds"—

Mr. Partridge: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wilson: Not until I have finished the sentence. It continues:
one can be fairly confident that the recent great increase in mortality from lung cancer has not been due to diesel fumes, since the increase in lung cancer has been almost contemporan-

eous with the increase in the use of diesel engines—if, indeed, the increase in mortality did not precede it. From what is known of industrial cancers in man, one would not expect to find cancer induced by diesel fumes occurring until 10, 20 or more years after exposure to the fumes.
That is a pretty definite opinion.

Mr. Partridge: But surely my hon. Friend, as a lawyer, knows that he can get an expert to swear to anything? If he really wants some evidence, he sees it standing in front of him now.

Mr. Wilson: I do not know to what the hon. Member is referring. The evidence which I was reading was a letter from Dr. Richard Doll of the Statistical Research Unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. He is known as one of the great authorities on this disease. I was suggesting, on a point about which there has been some doubt before, that there is a medical opinion suggesting that diesel fumes have nothing to do with causing lung cancer, whatever the cause may be. For those reasons I think it would be a most retrograde step were a Clause of this sort added to the Bill.

Mr. R. Bell: I have in my hand another opinion by Dr. Doll with a slightly different effect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] Unlike my hon. Friend I will not read it.
After the completely unsatisfactory reply of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and out of a quite undeserved pity for London Transport, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(USE OF VEHICLES ON FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS.)

The following additional subsections shall be inserted at the end of section-fourteen of the Act of 1930 (Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads):—
(3) The expression 'lawful authority' in subsection (1) of this section shall mean, in relation to the use of vehicles on any road being a footway or bridleway, otherwise than in the normal course of husbandry or for the purposes of lawful access to or egress from any building, the consent in writing of the owner or occupier of the land over which the footway or bridleway passes:
Provided that such consent shall not be given except with the prior approval in writing of the highway authority.


(4) The foregoing subsection shall not have effect unless it has been adopted by the highway authority (when such authority is not the Minister) by a resolution passed at a meeting of the authority".—[Mr. Ede.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is an alternative to the proposed new Clause dealing with the same subject which appeared on page 3427 of the Order Paper, and it has been redrafted in an effort to meet what I understand were difficulties which the Ministry might have found in accepting the other Clause. I hope that in its redrafted form the Minister will find that these difficulties have disappeared. The Clause proposes to give a definition, in certain circumstances, to what is meant by the phrase "lawful authority" in Section 14 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, I930, which reads as follows:
If without lawful authority any person drives a motor vehicle on to or upon any common land, moor land or other land of whatsoever description…or on any road being a bridleway or footway, he shall be guilty of an offence…
This new Clause is designed to deal with the problem of what is known as a motor cycle scramble, a form of enjoyment indulged in by certain people in this country, and from which I do not dissent where it is carried on under conditions which have regard to the reasonable comfort of other people who may be using the track, or wish to use the track, where the scramble is taking place. This pastime involves the climbing of tracks up steep hills and provides a form of excitement to a number of young people who are motor cyclists and who indulge in this pastime during weekends. They may be found on the escarpment of the North Devons, driving up from the Reigate to Guildford Road, on Ranmore Common and similar places and along footpaths which are not normally traversed by vehicles. These paths could not be used even by pedal cyclists because it would be too dangerous to go down them and impossible to ride a pedal cycle up them. I understand that scrambles also occur in the neighbourhood of The Peak and in various parts of Lancashire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire.
7.45 p.m.
It is not desired to prohibit this form of pastime but to ensure that the sport shall be conducted in such a way that

ordinary people are given sufficient protection from some of its worst and most incommoding features. It is proposed that "lawful authority" shall mean.
in relation to the use of vehicles on any road being a footway or bridleway, otherwise than in the normal course of husbandry or for the purposes of lawful access to or egress from any building, the consent in writing of the owner or occupier of the land over which the footway or bridleway passes: Provided that such consent shall not be given except with the prior approval in writing of the highway authority.
That is the essential part of the proposal. Virtually, it means that in most rural areas the county council would have to be consulted before these scrambles take place.
It was represented to the County Councils' Association that one objection was that not all the county councils desired the power. But, if a county council does not want the power, that is no reason why the Clause should not be accepted, because other county councils, including Surrey and Derbyshire—those I can speak for positively—do desire it. Therefore subsection (4) was added to the Clause, which means that this will be an adoptive provision. If a county council does not want it, that authority will not adopt subsection (3). If it does want it, the authority will avail itself of the provisions of subsection (4) and pass the necessary resolution.
I wish to make plain that this Clause is not aimed at this particular form of exciting Sunday diversion practised by a large number of young people in different parts of the country. It is not a form of excitement that has ever appealed much to me, because occasionally I have met people taking part in a motor cycle scramble when I have been leading a rambling party down one of the paths which they have selected. It is a most terrifying experience. The noise, hustle and bustle associated with this pastime is such that it should not take place on public highways, because after all a footpath or a bridleway is a public highway over which the Queen's lieges have the right to traverse in reasonable comfort and security.
This new Clause has the support of the County Councils' Association, of which I am president, of the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, of which I am president, and of the Ramblers' Association, Southern Area, also of which


I am president. Generally speaking, I find these diverse presidencies occasionally involve me in highly judicial considerations before I decide which one of the three I shall support in a given cause, which they all have at heart, but which they wish to serve in totally different ways. On this occasion, however, there is complete unanimity that there is a need for such a provision as is proposed in the new Clause.
If the wording is not quite as the Minister would like it, I can only say that I never believe that an official draftsman will accept the effort of a non-official draftsman. I venture to suggest that the case is entirely reasonable and, indeed, overwhelming. If the Minister does not like this wording, and if he or the official draftsman can think of any other wording which will have the effect we desire, I can assure him that we are not wedded to any particular form of words.
I do ask him to have regard to the normal users of these tracks, and to give them some assistance in dealing with the problems produced by the extraordinary uses to which they are put. I want to assure him that this new Clause is not aimed at the suppression of motor cycle scrambles. I want him to feel that this is not aimed at their suppression but at bringing them under a control, which will enable all persons who desire to use footpaths on Sunday afternoons to be able to use them in reasonable comfort and security.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I rise to support the proposed new Clause, moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). When he began his speech I wondered at what point he would declare his own interest, whether he would say that as the winner of a number of these trophies or races he hoped to win some more cups and required this new Clause to assist him in doing so; but it was in a different capacity that he told the House of his interest in weekend occupations.
I am sure that nobody in this House wants this or any other form of reasonable sport to be in any way curtailed or restricted, but owing to modern mechanical devices and inventions motor cycles are much more powerful and much more capable of traversing the hills, slopes and paths of the country than they were, certainly when I was young enough to ride

a motor cycle, whether I rode one or not. We live on a very small island, and we must see that a limited amount of land is used for everybody's amusement and recreation, and is used in a reasonable way.
I am sure that if we accept this new Clause, in its present or some amended form, we shall—if I may use what is perhaps an unfortunate expression when discussing motor cycles—kill two birds with one stone; we shall be putting some form of control on those who might be tempted to use over-dangerous types of route for their scrambles, and at the same time we shall be protecting the interests of those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, have a more sober and leisurely way of traversing the country.
I hope that the Minister will see his way to adopting the new Clause, at any rate, in some form.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: There is just one point which has not yet been made, either by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) or by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). That is the danger to the grass along our paths and on our moors from motor vehicles and motor cycles destroying it. On the slopes which these vehicles so often use the heavy rains of winter wash away the paths themselves. One can see over many parts of the moors in many parts of the country the tracks of cars and motor cycles which are destroying the moor itself, and the vegetation.

Sir Frank Medlicott: I am glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words in support of this proposed new Clause, which has, if I may say so, been so ably brought before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). It is a very happy occasion when anyone can disclose such a variety of important and useful interests as he has told us of tonight.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister has been doubtful about this proposal on two grounds, the first being, I think, the suggestion that this is only a relatively small problem, or a problem affecting only a small part of the country. I am given to understand that complaints in regard to this kind of scramble have


been made by the counties of Cheshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Westmorland, Yorkshire, and Denbighshire—and we have heard this evening of the addition of Surrey—all counties, if I may say so, next to my own native county of Somerset, which can claim to be amongst the most beautiful in England. Their interests do need to be protected.
In the second place, I understand that the Minister has, perhaps, felt that the existing Section 14 of the 1930 Road Traffic Act does provide adequate powers in regard to this problem. It is, however, true to say that it is all too easy under the existing law for the promoters of these events to obtain some kind of authority, either from the owner or, perhaps, even from the occupier of the site of the footpath or bridle way, and, thus armed with some kind of lawful authority, they are able to hold these scrambles in almost any part of the country.
As has been said, there is no reason whatever to interfere unduly with the activities of these motor cycle clubs. Nevertheless, we do wish to restrict them, to some extent at least, in the place where they are to carry on those activities. We live in an age which is dominated by noise and petrol; one of the great tragedies nowadays is that no longer, in any part of the country, is it possible to be away even from the noise of aircraft. We want to feel that there are some places where people can get away from the roads, from noise, and from the fumes of petrol, and enjoy the peace and quiet of the countryside. That is the object of the new Clause.

Mr. Watkinson: I do not know whether a third Surrey Member ought to speak on this matter. I want to be quite fair, As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) has just said, it was my view that this new Clause should not be accepted. It has, however, been our practice all through the consideration of this Bill, at least so long as I have been in charge of it—and it is a practice which I have much appreciated—to try to bring a reasonably open mind to bear upon it. I must say that I am impressed by the points made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and by my hon and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) and the Member for Norfolk,

Central. I like walking on these bridle tracks as much as any of them.
On the other hand, what has rather changed my view is the right hon. Gentleman's point, which he reiterated, that he is not trying to limit or stop the sport of motor cycle scrambling, which, I think, is a quite legitimate sport. To some of us, it may appear to be noisy and otherwise unpleasant; but it is a legitimate sport, and those who wish to pursue it have as much right to do so as others have to take part in other legitimate activities.
Therefore, what I think is the right way of dealing with this new Clause—I do not want to detain the House for long, because we still have a great deal to do—is for me to give an undertaking to try to find a way of dealing with this matter in another place. I want to make three points. It must not appear to limit severely the sport itself. That, I think, would be wrong, as I think the right hon. Gentleman accepts. It must enable a county council which does not want to do this to opt out of it. Thirdly, it must be quite clear that the approval in writing of the highway authority must not be unreasonably withheld.
If the right hon. Gentleman would accept that assurance, I think we can meet those three points. I will then undertake to introduce an appropriate Amendment in another place.

Mr. Ede: I should like to thank the Minister for the sympathetic way in which he has met the case which has been put forward. In view of the assurance that he has given us, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2.—(TESTING OF CONDITION OF VEHICLES ON ROADS.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, to leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It might be convenient to consider, with this Amendment, the proposed Amendment, in page 4, line 36, to leave out from "section" to "he", and that in line 38, to leave out from "section" to the second "the".

Mr. Strauss: I hope that the House will consider this Amendment and the Clause to which it relates very carefully. I suggest that the Clause as it stands is really ridiculous, and in order to make it sensible and effective it must be amended. This Clause provides for the testing of vehicles on the roads. We were told in Committee that to have any system of spot checking it would be necessary to bring the existing law up to date and to make some amendments, and those changes are embodied in Clause 2.
At the start of the Clause is stated the purpose of the testing of vehicles on the roads:
Any authorised examiner may test a motor vehicle on a road for the purpose…"—
I hope that the House will note the purpose—
of ascertaining whether the requirements imposed by law (whether generally or at specified times or in specified circumstances) as to brakes, silencers, steering gear, tyres, and lighting equipment and reflectors are complied with as respects the vehicle, and of bringing to the notice of the driver any failure to comply with those requirements…
Anyone reading that would assume, as I certainly assumed, that if cars are tested on the side of the road—it is proposed to test between 40,000 and 60,000 a year—the tester will see whether the brakes, the steering wheel and the lighting are in a reasonable condition.
If the car offends against the law by being below the standard required by the law. the tester must take the appropriate action, which is to report the matter to the authorities. If the purpose of the Clause is as stated, to see whether the law is complied with, surely it is the duty of the inspector to see that if it is not complied with a prosecution shall follow. There could be no other meaning. If the tester found that the brakes were in a dangerous condition, or the lighting was all wrong and the law was broken, he would be in duty bound to take action or he would be condoning an offence.
That purpose of testing cars to see whether the minimum legal standards are being observed is obviously desirable, quite apart from the purpose of telling the owner of the car that his car is not in a good condition or that the lights are out of alignment and ought to be corrected. That is the secondary purpose, but the first is to see whether the law is

being broken. Subsection (3) tells us that a motorist whose car is to be examined for this purpose can say to the examiner, "I do not want my car examined now. I should like it examined in a few weeks' time". The examiner cannot then proceed with the examination. The motorist can go away and have his car put into a condition which complies with the law, thus avoiding the penalties which should properly fall upon him. That seems to be entirely ridiculous.
Someone is caught in the act of committing an offence, which may be a very serious offence and result in serious accident or death, but he is to be allowed to say, "I will not allow you to examine the evidence which I carry with me that an offence is being committed. I want to carry the evidence away and have the car put right, so that when you examine the vehicle in a fortnight's time it will be in a perfect condition and there will be no evidence that I have been driving a car in a highly dangerous condition".
Either the purpose of the test on the side of the road must be purely that of giving advice to a motorist and telling him that he should see to this, that or the other thing and have the car put in as good a condition as it ought to be in, or it is, as stated in the Clause, to see whether the law is complied with. I am sure that the Attorney-General would agree that if an officer of the Crown sees that the law is not being complied with he is in duty bound to take the necessary steps to bring the offender to justice.
This matter was dealt with very briefly in the Standing Committee, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made this statement:
The proposed new Clause gives to the driver the option to have the inspection deferred. If any hon. Member feels inclined to say that the provision is too wide because it would enable the driver of a car which was in a very poor condition to elect to have the inspection deferred and then to have the car put right before the date of the inspection, our reply is that that in itself is no bad thing."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 24th November, 1955; c. 557.]
That is extraordinary. Of course it is a good thing for a defect in a car to be put right, but if the purpose is to see whether the law is being broken and if it is found that the law is being broken—it may be in a serious way—it is essential that those who find that the law has been


broken, or suspect that it has, should have the opportunity of inspecting the car.
The tester should be able to see whether the brakes are in as appalling a condition as they appear to be and to take the necessary action. If the tester is to be told by the motorist, "I will not let you look at the brakes now but you can look at them in a week's time" one of the chief purposes of the Clause will be violated, and certainly the purpose as stated in subsection (1) will be entirely nullified.
It is no use saying, as the Minister said in Committee, that it is not the intention that the Clause should be a penal clause. I should have thought that the wording of the Clause would make it inevitable and necessary that the tester, finding or suspecting that a violation of the law had taken place, should proceed to test the car, and that if he finds that that is so he must take the offender to court.
Therefore, Z move the deletion of subsection (3) which would enable the motorist to say, "I shall not have my car examined by you, Mr. Inspector, today, but will take it away and you can look at it in a few weeks' time, when it will be in a good condition, and when the very serious offence of driving it in the condition in which it is today cannot be examined by you, and you will not be able to prosecute—as you ought—because I have been driving a dangerous car liable to cause an accident". To put the matter right, I move the Amendment.

Mr. Janner: I want to add a few words to the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss). It seems to me that difficulty will arise if this subsection remains. I think that the argument of my right hon. Friend is a perfectly legitimate one.
If an officer stops a car, is he to say to the driver, "Under subsection (3), you are entitled, if you desire, to have the inspection deferred for a period"? Does the Minister think that in such circumstances anyone would do other than have the inspection deferred? The motorist is not likely to risk a prosecution by having the examination made at that

time if he knows that he has this alternative. One might as well say that under no circumstances shall the inspection take place at the time but that the person who is stopped will be told to choose a reasonable time when the inspection shall take place.
I think that my right hon. Friend is perfectly right. That state of affairs would immediately destroy the purpose of the Clause. It would mean that a person could drive an unfit vehicle, and on being found out could say, "Give me time and I will put it right". If that is the intention, it should be stated clearly by the Minister.
There are many cases in which a caution is administered to a person. A policeman will sometimes give a caution. He will say, "You are doing something which is wrong. See that you do not do it again". He acts as a court of justice himself very often. In this matter, however, our aim is to see that cars are in proper condition and that anyone who lets his car fall into a bad condition, which may result in an accident, perhaps a serious accident, shall be found guilty of an offence. I hope that the Minister will take heed of what has been said by my right hon. Friend, and consider the Amendment sympathetically; and, if he cannot accept it, find an Amendment of his own to achieve the same purpose.

Mr. Isaacs: I think there is another angle from which this matter should be looked at. A motorist is stopped on the road and told that his car is dangerous because the lights or the brakes, for instance, are wrong. Then he has thirty days in which he can make up his mind to do something about the defect. That means that he has thirty days in which he can drive that dangerous vehicle anywhere. He could drive it from London to as far as the north of Scotland and back. Suppose that such a man, within the thirty days, causes an injury to somebody with his defective car. Will the fact that he took advantage of the thirtyday period be held against him? Or will he be able to plead, "It was not so bad, and they let me go"? If a man is found to have a dangerous car he ought not to be allowed any more time in which to drive it than that which it will take him to drive the car home or to a garage so that it can be repaired. To allow him


freedom to drive anywhere he likes in the United Kingdom for thirty days is bad.

Mr. Watkinson: First I should tell the House why this thirty-day permissive period was prescribed. I want to make it quite plain, because I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) takes a different view of what the reason was. The purpose of this spot checking is not to prosecute motorists. It is to secure that cars are kept in a satisfactory condition. It is the other side of the testing medal, so to speak.

Mr. Strauss: Can the Minister give some guarantee, and can it be clearly stated in the Bill, that in no circumstances will prosecutions follow this roadside checking of cars?

Mr. Watkinson: No, of course I could not give that. Perhaps I may be allowed to develop the matter, for I think there may be a possibility of finding some way through this difficulty.
The purpose of the spot checking is to have a different method, the spot checking method, of trying to persuade motorists to keep their cars up to scratch. It is a method of dealing with cars which at first, perhaps, will not be able to go through the testing stations.
This period was prescribed by my predecessor because it was felt that it should be made plain, if the spot checks were much increased in number, that they were not attempts to prosecute a large number of motorists. but to secure that a larger number of motorists had their cars put right. That is why the thirty-day period was allowed.
8.15 p.m.
That was at a time when my predecessor intended, I think, that the spot check method should be pressed forward much more vigorously, because at that time, I understand, he was not proposing to reintroduce the compulsory testing of cars. I regard the spot checking as a useful adjunct to compulsory testing.
I have been impressed by the arguments put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs). I do not know whether we can find a way through this difficulty of what will happen to the man

whose car is in such bad order that he should be prosecuted because he is deliberately endangering other people on the roads. That is a very relevant consideration. On the other hand, of course, it is only fair to say that the vast number of cases will not fall into that category, as, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will agree.
The only way I can see of meeting the right hon. Gentlemen is this, I do not know whether it will. I have only just thought of it, and it is therefore not a complete solution. I am wondering whether we can leave some of the discretion which at present rests with my examiners, so that if an examiner is satisfied that a car, although needing attention, is not dangerous, and that, perhaps, the driver has some genuine reason for not wanting to stop for an examination, he should allow him to proceed. The driver could be one of us, for instance, on an urgent journey to his constituency, or he could be a doctor. I think that such a man may have the advantage of the 30-day rule. If a car is obviously a danger and contravening the law, then, I think, one should, perhaps, try to draft a short Amendment so that my examiner, in conjunction with the policeman, who would, of course, have to be there, because it is the policeman who has to stop the car, would have the right to say, "Obviously this car is in such a dangerous condition the examination must be carried out forthwith."
I do not know whether I can achieve the making of that distinction. It would have to be clearly made, clearly set out, so that normally the ordinary motorist, whose car merely needs attention and who has some valid reason for wishing to defer the examination, may be allowed to do so, but in the special case, where the examiner is satisfied that the car is a danger on the highway and ought not to be allowed to proceed except for a limited distance, he would have authority to carry out the test on the spot.
I am quite prepared to examine that possibility to see if an Amendment to that effect can be made in another place. I do not think that I can go farther than that, and I must make it plain to the right hon. Gentlemen that I am not prepared to omit subsection (3) because I think that that would or could lead to the using of the spot check for a purpose for


which I certainly do not want to use it, that is, to secure prosecutions. I do not want to secure prosecutions: I want by this Bill to secure a higher standard of safety on the roads.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman has made another offer that he will do something in another place. I ought to have raised this matter on the last new Clause, but I was so overwhelmed by the right hon. Gentleman's generosity that I was disarmed of all suspicion. However, this is a Bill which originated in another place—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Watkinson: No. This is a new Bill. The previous Bill ended its life in another place. There is no difficulty in accepting my undertaking. If I give an assurance, I undertake to carry it out, and I have undertaken to try to clear this up.

Mr. Graham Page: I should like from this side of the House to express some sympathy with the case put forward by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), and to urge my right hon. Friend to endeavour to think out a solution along the lines which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. We all appreciate the case of the motorist who may be hastening to catch an aircraft or a ship; we all appreciate that a doctor may have to hasten to a patient.
I raised this matter myself in Committee, and I pointed out that there does not seem to be another case in law in which a man can say, "I wish to defer the examination to see whether I am guilty or not". It seems to me that this latitude could be extended to the man who is drunk when driving a car, who would then say, "I will defer the test of my drunkenness until tomorrow, when I shall be sober".
It is very dangerous to introduce this principle of deferment into this subsection. I am sure that some discretion can be left to the policeman and the examining officer in the case where a motorist is reasonably in a hurry to keep some urgent appointment and his car seems to be in order, but to give a complete right to the motorist to say, "I shall defer this for thirty days", when his car may be in a dangerous condition, is going too far. That provision has never been

needed up to the present in checks on commercial vehicles. Discretion has been used where there is some consideration of urgency and the driver should continue his journey, but it would be dangerous to introduce for the private motorist the sort of dispensation provided by the subsection.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am grateful to the Minister for his attitude. A way out of the difficulty might be to add to the second paragraph of the proviso in subsection (3), which reads:
…where it appears to a police constable. that, by reason of an accident having occurred…
something to the effect of "if in the opinion of the examiner the car appears to be in a seriously dangerous condition". It must be remembered that a person, in avoiding the testing of a car in a dangerous condition, may be avoiding a penalty of £50 or three months' imprisonment if he is a really bad offender. I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to look at the matter again, and for that reason I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 8 OF ACT OF I934.)

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 45, at the end to insert:
or in such a condition, as respects lighting equipment or reflectors or the maintenance thereof, that it is not capable of being used on a road during the hours of darkness without contravention of the requirements imposed by law as to obligatory lamps or reflectors".
The Amendment is drafted to give effect to a promise which I made in Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) moved an Amendment dealing with lighting and reflectors, and I indicated in the Committee that we accepted its principle but we thought that it would be necessary to make certain changes in its wording. In return for that assurance on my part, the hon. Member was good enough to withdraw his Amendment.
The effect of this Amendment is to make it an offence, subject to the qualification to be added by the next Amendment, to sell or offer for sale any motor vehicle or trailer the use of which during the hours of darkness would be illegal because of the requirements of the law as to obligatory lamps or reflectors.


Illegal use might arise, for instance, because the vehicle lacked such lamp or reflectors altogether; because the front obligatory lamps of the vehicle did not show a white light visible from a reasonable distance in accordance with the Road Transport Lighting Acts; because the rear obligatory lamps of the vehicle did not show a red light visible from a reasonable distance in accordance with the lighting Acts or a red light of sufficient power in accordance with the lighting regulations; or the obligatory lamps or reflectors did not comply as to number, position and so on with the relevant lighting regulations.
I indicated that the broad wording of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Enfield, East might go further than I thought he intended. This Amendment is an improvement upon Clause 6 (2) in several respects. It excludes from the application of the Clause a number of lighting defects which are unlikely materially to affect road safety, for example, height limitation and wattage markings on bulbs for headlamps and spotlamps, compliance with conditions prescribed for reversing lights and parking lamps, and so on. It makes it clear that rear reflectors are within its scope, and it correctly mentions "during the hours of darkness" as the period when alone it would be an offence to use a vehicle with defective lights or reflectors. I hope therefore that with that explanation the House will be disposed to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: All I want to do is to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the Amendment, which meets the case that I had in mind when I moved my Amendment in Standing Committee. We were concerned with the sale of second-hand vehicles to which the Clause would apply and, for some unknown reason, the Government, in drafting the original Bill, missed out any reference whatsoever to lighting. They were concerned only with brakes, steering gear and tyres, but it seemed to us, in view of the number of accidents on the roads due to bad lighting, that it was essential that this provision should be included. The Amendment meets the point that we made in Committee and we gratefully support it.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert:
(2) At the end of subsection (4) of the said section eight (which affords a defence in proceedings for an offence under that section) there shall be added the following words "or, in the case of a vehicle or trailer the sale, supply or offer of which is alleged to be unlawful by reason of its condition as respects lighting equipment or reflectors or the maintenance thereof, would not be so used during the hours of darkness until it had been put into a condition in which it might be so used during those hours without contravention of the requirements imposed by law as to obligatory lamps or reflectors".
The proposed deletion of subsection (2) is consequential on the insertion in subsection (1) of the words of the Amendment to page 5, line 45.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 7. leave out "subsection" and insert "subsections".—[Mr. Molson.]

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 10, at the end to add:
(6) In this section "obligatory lamps or reflectors" means, in relation to a motor vehicle or trailer, the lamps or reflectors required by law to be carried thereon while it is on a road during the hours of darkness and when it is neither drawing nor being drawn by another vehicle, except that the said expression does not, in the case of a trailer, include lamps showing a white light to the front".
This Amendment defines the term "obligatory lamps or reflectors" to which the preceding Amendment refers and applies.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS IN CHARGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES WHEN UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRINK OR DRUGS.)

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Biller): I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, to leave out "or attempting to drive".
This Amendment is closely connected with the Amendment to page 7, line 36, to leave out subsection (6). Therefore, if the House will permit me, I will deal with both Amendments together.
When the Clause was discussed in Committee I indicated that I would try, before the Report stage, to see if we could improve the form of the Clause, and the Amendments are directed to that end. The House will remember that under


Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, a person driving, or attempting to drive, under the influence of drink or drugs is liable to heavy penalties. However, the view was expressed in another place, and in Committee, that where the driver was merely in charge of the vehicle, and it could be shown that he was not driving, bad not attempted to drive, and would not drive in that condition, he should not be subjected to these heavy and automatic penalties, and this Clause was an attempt to meet that point of view as those hon. Members in the Committee will remember.
8.30 p.m.
The effect of this Amendment is to delete the words "or attempting to drive" in subsection (1). With those words standing there, as they did, it made it clear that a person who was attempting to drive should not be charged with an offence under the Clause. A complication arose in view of subsection (6) of the Clause, which went on to provide that a person charged with an offence under the Clause might be convicted of it if, notwithstanding, it appeared from the evidence that, at the time the person was charged with committing the offence, he was attempting to drive.
Attention was called to the difficulties that might arise from the exclusion in subsection (1) of persons attempting to drive and apparently being brought back in subsection (6) into the scope of the Clause. On further consideration, therefore, we have felt that it is a rather artificial procedure and possibly would be extremely confusing, not only to juries, but also perhaps in some magistrates courts, to make this express exclusion in subsection (1) and then, as it were, to bring back those attempting to drive by express provision in subsection (6).
The effect of this Amendment, which I do not think affects the substance, is that a person who is thought by the prosecution merely to have been in charge, will be charged under this subsection. If, in the course of the case, a witness says something which he or she has not said before when statements were being taken, to the effect that he was attempting to drive or had been driving, then that will make him guilty of an offence under this Clause because he is clearly in charge, whether attempting to drive or driving.
Where, however, the evidence in the hands of the proscution would lead it to suppose that he was, while under the influence, driving or attempting to drive, the proper charge would be a charge under Section 15 of the 1930 Act, which would involve much heavier penalties than those under this Clause, where a man is proved merely to have been in charge of the vehicle. So it is an improvement. Without lessening the sanctions, it makes the Clause simpler, and I hope it will be found to work better in practice.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have collected the voices. I did not see anybody get up.

Mr. Strauss: As hon. Gentlemen opposite were waiting to get up, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I thought they would get up first and make some comment. I did not realise that you had reached the stage of collecting the voices.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Nobody got up, and I looked around.

Mr. Strauss: Someone was trying to catch your eye, Sir.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but unless hon. Members stand up there is nothing I can do about it. I am afraid that I have collected the voices. Mr. Ede.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 6. line 43, to leave out "four" and to insert "three".
I have moved this Amendment in pursuance of a line of argument which I used on Second Reading and to which I alluded yesterday. I am convinced that the penalties for some of these offences are so out of keeping with what the people who have to adjudicate upon them feel is the correct sort of penalty to impose in these cases, that many people are not convicted who ought to be convicted.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), whose name along with mine is inscribed on the Commission of the Peace for the County of Surrey, has had the same experience as I have had on many occasions of sitting at quarter sessions and hearing a case most convincingly proved, with appropriate comments made by the chairman of the quarter sessions bench before


which it came, and realising by the looks on the faces of the jury that nothing would convince them that so respectable a person as the person in the dock ought to be in jeopardy of being sent to prison.
In fact, one deputy-chairman of that bench, now retired, used to try to get round the jury by saying, in the course of his summing up, "Of course, if you find this man guilty, the law says that he may go to prison, but, personally, I do not think, if I had to consider the sentence, that I would send him to prison." In that way, he boasted that he got convictions where some of his colleagues, acting as either chairman or deputy-chairman, failed to do so.
My own view is that, when I sit at petty sessions and a person charged with any offence that would give him four months' imprisonment is given the option of being tried summarily or of going to quarter sessions, when he elects to be dealt with summarily, I am inclined to think that he has been very badly advised, for no matter how bad his case may be, my own view is that if he goes to quarter sessions he has a fighting chance of being found not guilty, particularly if he looks respectable.
This is really an appalling thing, and I heard an hon. Friend of mine say in the House yesterday in regard to a similar kind of offences that people do not like associating motorists with the criminal classes. Let us be quite clear that if a person in charge of one of these lethal weapons uses it in the kind of way in which it ought not to be used, having regard to the ordinary safety of the general public, there can hardly be a more criminal act that a man can commit. Whether we like it or not, anyone who is a fairly regular attender at the courts must be aware, as is the hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. F. P. Crowder)—whom we occasionally see facing us, not in the dock, but doing his best for the fellow who is in the dock, and I know the hon. Gentleman and his father so well that I do not really need to put in even those safeguarding words—must be aware of the problem that I am submitting to the House.
I admit that it is with some reluctance that I put it forward, because, of course, the effect of this Amendment would be to withdraw from the defendant the right

of being tried by a jury. I was talking the other day to a chairman of quarter sessions—not the chairman of quarter sessions to whom people might think I was alluding—who said: "My difficulty is this. My under-sheriff selects people from different places to come together; that is to say, from one town on one occasion and from another town on another occasion. If I get a jury from one town in my county, they will find every motorist guilty and every alleged burglar not guilty. If they come from another town, they will find every person charged with burglary guilty, but no motorist." I said to him, "Why do you not try mixing them?" He said, "If I did, I should never get a conviction at all; no jury would agree."
I hope that one result of this short discussion will mean that we can bring home to magistrates and jurors the really devastating loss of life that is caused by the improper use of vehicles, and that people who run risks which the law declares to be indefensible ought, no matter what they look like, to be dealt with on the evidence that both magistrates and jurors have taken oaths shall be the basis of any decision that they have to make.
If the Amendment were carried, the defendant, if he objected to either the decision or the sentence imposed by the court of summary jurisdiction, would have the right of appeal to the appeal committee of quarter sessions. I admit that is not, perhaps, from his point of view quite as good as getting in front of a jury, because he is still being dealt with by people who have a fairly continuous experience of the courts, whereas on many occasions one might get a whole jury not one member of which has ever been in a court before. While jurors try to do their best—I believe that they try as far as they possibly can to discharge the oath which they have taken—they are in unusual circumstances and are being subjected to a fairly heavy strain.
I am convinced that any increase in penalties at the present time would lead to an increase in the number of failures to convict rather than in anything else. I am also convinced that if the failures of the police to secure convictions before juries in motoring cases were in as high a proportion in any other form of case there would be an outcry in the House


and elsewhere as to the inefficiency and tyranny of the police forces.
I move my Amendment with considerable regret because it is an expression of doubt about the efficiency of the judicial system and particularly of that part of it to which most of us would like to pay the highest respect. I am convinced that at the present time, when faced with the practical points in the court, public opinion, as expressed by jurors, is not sufficiently well-informed and acquainted with the procedures to be able to make the law effective. It is with considerable regret but nonetheless because I believe the point ought to be ventilated that I move my Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I have listened with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has had to say. I appreciate the reasons why he has thought it right to move his Amendment, but I cannot say that I agree with him either in his line of argument or in the conclusion that he reached. He very frankly said that what he was seeking to do was to remove from the possibility of trial by jury the more serious motoring offences. Indeed, the whole of his speech, as I think he recognised, was an attack upon and criticism of our jury system.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: As applied to this particular class of offence.

The Attorney-General: As applied to this particular class of offence.
One often hears talk of the thin end of the wedge, and I can well understand that those who are accustomed more to sitting on benches than on juries may take the view that, on the whole, trial before a bench of magistrates is more satisfactory than trial before a jury. I do not share that view. I agree with the right hon. Member for South Shields that where we have a whole range of automatic penalties there is a possibility that not only a jury but a bench of magistrates may, to avoid that automatic consequence, refrain from convicting on more serious offences. The same reasoning does not apply where the penalties are not well known to be entirely automatic, and it does not apply in my experience in trials before a jury, because unless it is a jury sitting regularly to try these cases, it often does not know what penalties can be imposed if a conviction is recorded.
A jury is not concerned with what penalty can be imposed. Its task is comparatively simple. I suppose that it happens to all of us on occasions that we think that a jury has reached a wrong conclusion, but I have never been ready to be absolutely certain that in reaching a conclusion on a question of fact the jury might not have been right and my view entirely wrong. It would be a very retrograde step at this time to take away from the motorist accused of the more serious motoring crimes the right of electing to go for trial before a jury, a right which he has had in relation to these offences ever since 1930.
I do not believe that the system works so badly, nor do I believe that this increase of penalties will lead to a large increase in the number of those who elect to go for trial. There is a substantial number of motorists who do not wish to go for trial for one reason or another. One reason may be the realisation that there is no large chance of acquittal before any court and it is simpler to get the thing dealt with straight away.
It is right that where these very heavy penalties can be imposed and the Bill increases the maximum penalty which can be imposed we should not take from an accused motorist the right of electing to go for trial. It may be a trial not at quarter sessions, but before a High Court judge and at which, being a trial on indictment, there is a possibility of punishment heavier than that which he would receive at the hands of the magistrate.
For those reasons, while recognising the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, I ask the House to reject the Amendment as being one likely to lead not to an enhancement in the administrationof justice but rather to the view being formed by those who find themselves in the dock in magistrates' and other courts that because their right of going before a jury for trial is taken away they are being deprived of one of the privileges of citizens of this country, namely, when charged with a serious offence, of having the right of trial before a jury.
I urge the House to reject the proposal, which is put forward on later Amendments in relation to other and equally important motoring offences. I hope that I have adequately covered the ground in my reply, and I hope that the right hon.


Gentleman will realise that I appreciate his reasons for putting forward his view. I hope that I have convinced him that it would be a bad step to accept the Amendment, which he has advocated so persuasively.

Mr. Ede: Not convinced, but overwhelmed by the courtesy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 4, to leave out from "shall" to "if" in line 5 and to insert:
be deemed for the purposes of this section not to have been in charge of a motor vehicle.
This Amendment is also designed to simplify the Clause. Cases in which the proviso will afford a defence will, broadly speaking, be cases in which the English decisions have been that, under the existing law, the defendant is strictly held to have been in charge of the vehicle, such as when he is in bed and has left his vehicle outside his front door, or, being seated in the back of his vehicle, has handed the car key to a friend and asked him to get a taxi to take him home. At present, such a person is held to have been in charge of the vehicle, but the proviso allows him to escape the consequences if he can provide proof of the matters mentioned therein.
In the existing drafting, however, the wording refers to an offence, and it seems to be both better English and better in substance to say that he shall
be deemed far the purposes of this section not to have been in charge of a motor vehicle ",
if the circumstances set out in the proviso are in fact proved.
Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move. in page 7, line 6, to leave out "time of the offence" and to insert "material time".
This is the first of two drafting Amendments consequential upon the Amendment in line 4. They merely alter the words "time of the offence" in the proviso to the "material time," as, in fact, no time of the offence has to be specified.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 7. line 9, leave out "time of the offence" and insert "material time".—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 34, after "1930", to insert:
otherwise than by virtue of the next following section of this Act".
This Amendment is necessary to prevent a conviction for being drunk while riding a bicycle counting as a previous conviction for the purposes of a charge of being drunk in charge of a motor car.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the AttorneyGeneral tell us how many such cases he has had?

The Attorney-General: I have never been engaged in any case concerned with being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

Mr. Ede: Is not one of the advantages of a bicycle the fact that it is very difficult to ride if one is not in a sober condition?

The Attorney-General: Under the decisions in relation to motor cars one might well be in charge of a bicycle although off the bicycle and taking refreshment in another place.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 35, leave out "thereunder" and insert "under this section".—[The Attorney-General.]
Amendment proposed: In page 7, line 36, leave out subsection (6).—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Cole: I have followed my right hon. and learned Friend most carefully in his explanation of the alterations to the beginning of the Clause. He carefully explained the position about driving or attempting to drive. if I remember correctly, he said that the fact that there was an attempt to drive would not take the offence out of the Clause, but would also bring it within the terms of Section 15 of the 1930 Act, which is a more serious matter. Now we are deleting subsection (6). and I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend could tell me what will be the position of a man who has been found to be drunk or unfit to drive while in charge of a car, when it emerges during the course of the evidence that he has been attempting to drive. As far as I can see, the case comes within the terms of both this Clause and Section 15. If that is so, I am satisfied, but I should be grateful for an explanation.

The Attorney-General: I think I can answer that quite simply. First of all, one has to consider what the accused is charged with. If he is charged under Section 15 and under this Clause and both those charges are before the court, assuming the evidence shows that he was driving or attempting to drive, he obviously would be convicted under Section 15. If, on the other hand, the evidence does not come up to that and it was that he was merely in charge, he would be convicted under this Clause. One can hardly drive or attempt to drive without being in charge, so subsection (6) is really not necessary. It merely adds to confusion to leave it in, particularly in the light of the earlier words in subsection (1).

Mr. Cole: At least my right hon. and learned Friend does admit that there was some confusion.

The Attorney-General: I said that this was to simplify it.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(APPLICATION TO PEDAL CYCLISTS OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO RECKLESS, DANGEROUS AND CARELESS DRIVING.)

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, at the beginning to insert "subsections (1) and (4) of".
I think that it might be convenient if I gave a short explanation of the Amendments that we are proposing to this Clause, although some of them subsequently will be moved and explained separately.
This is the first of a series of nine small Amendments designed to deal with certain points arising out of the application by this Clause to cyclists of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which deals with reckless and dangerous driving and driving under the influence of drink or drugs. This Amendment is the first of those relating to the application of Section 15. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), in the Standing Committee, moved an Amendment which had the effect of introducing subsection (1, c), which makes the provisions of Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, apply to cyclists. I accepted that Amendment in principle, but I indicated that, at a later stage, the Government would propose Amendments

for the purpose of securing that the provisions of Section 15, which deal with motorists who attempt to drive or are in charge of motor vehicles while under the influence of drink and so on, should not apply to cyclists.
The present Amendment modifies the application of Section 15 in certain respects. At present, the Clause applies the whole of Section 15 to pedal cyclists. Two of the subsections of Section 15 are, however, inappropriate. First, Section 15 (2) deals with disqualification from driving. Obviously that has no application in the case of pedal cyclists. Secondly, Section 15 (3) provides that persons charged under Section 15 shall not be liable to be charged under Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, with the offence of being drunk while in charge of a carriage. As is generally known, Section I2 of the 1872 Act has been held to apply to cyclists, and it should continue so to apply, since in the case of cyclists there will be no alternative provisions in the Road Traffic Act making it an offence for them to be drunk in charge of a cycle, such as there is for motorists under Section 15 of the 1930 Act, and as there will be under Clause 8 of the present Bill, when it becomes law.
9.0 p.m.
The remaining subsections of Section 15 of the Act of 1930—subsections (1) and (4)—deal respectively with the definition of the offences and the power to arrest without warrant. Subsection (4) should apply as it stands. Subsection (1) is applicable so far as the riding of a bicycle while drunk is concerned.
With that explanation, I hope that the House will be disposed to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Page: Is it your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we should discuss the next Amendment at the same time, as my right hon. Friend referred to the set of Amendments?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that meets the convenience of the House.

Mr. Molson: I intend to move the next Amendment separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Amendments will all have to be moved separately. Does the hon. Member mean that next Amendment would be discussed separately?

Mr. Page: I want to ask a question on the next Amendment, but if my right hon. Friend intends to move it separately, I will wait until then.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Each Amendment must be moved separately.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 7, at the end to insert
but with the omission of the reference to attempting to drive".
Section 15 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, I930, defines three offences in relation to motor vehicles—namely, driving, attemping to drive and being in charge. It is now proposed to apply only the first of these offences to pedal cyclists. Where a person is only attempting to ride or is merely in charge of a pedal cycle, it is not necessary to apply the heavier penalties available for the act of riding the cycle. In such circumstances, the person attempting to ride or being in charge can, if necessary, be prosecuted under Section I2 of the Licensing Act. 1872, which provides a maximum penalty of 40s. or imprisonment for one month.
This Amendment omits the reference in Section 15 to attempting to drive, the reference to being in charge having been deleted from the Section consequentially on Clause 8.

Mr. Page: I should have thought that the omission of these words defeated the whole purpose of the subsection. As it would stand, with these words omitted, one would be able to charge the cyclist only if he were cycling—if he were successfully riding his cycle. The last thing he would be doing if he were drunk would be successfully riding his cycle. Surely the only occasion on which one would need to charge him under the Clause is where he was attempting to drive or attempting to ride his cycle. I object to leaving out those very words which it seems to me create the offence which we were intending to introduce in this Clause against the cyclists.

Mr. Molson: If I may reply, with the leave of the House, it has been decided by the courts in Corkery v. Carpenter that a cyclist who was driving, in charge of a cycle, or attempting to ride it on a highway or in a public place committed an offence under Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872. It seems to me that

that is an adequate provision for dealing with that case. I think it would be inappropriate, under the new Clause with the heavier penalties, to deal with any one attempting to ride a cycle.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what the penalties are in the two separate cases?
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 17, to leave out from beginning to "and" in line 19.
The effect of this Amendment is to remove subsection (1, f) from the Clause. It is consequential on a further Government Amendment in page 8, line 28. Subsection (1, f) as it stands applies the provisions of Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, to pedal cyclists. This would have made it possible for a pedal cyclist charged with manslaughter to be convicted alternatively of an offence under Section 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, of reckless or dangerous driving if, on the evidence, the jury considered that he was guilty of reckless or dangerous driving. This provision is no longer appropriate.
The further Government Amendment is based on the view that procedure by way of indictment is too weighty machinery for the type of offence contemplated by this Clause, for which reason it is proposed that the use of indictment should be deleted. If that be right for the ordinary charge of dangerous riding, it must be right for the charge of dangerous riding when it is alternative to the charge of manslaughter and therefore subsection (1, f) of the Clause should be deleted. A pedal cyclist who gets off a charge of manslaughter could, if the police thought fit, be summoned to be dealt with by the magistrates for dangerous riding. This does not need any statutory provision.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, in page 8. line 28, at the beginning to insert:
"A person shall not be liable to be indicted by virtue of this section, and".
My right hon. Friend has already given a full background to this group of Amendments. The purpose of this Amendment is to implement our view that indictment is too heavy a penalty for the type of offence envisaged against


pedal cyclists in this Clause. It is considered that summary procedure will be sufficient; and the object of the Amendment and the two Amendments which follow is to delete the reference to indictment.

Mr. Ede: "Indictment" is not a penalty. An indictment is merely a procedural point in the application of the law. What happens is that occasionally if a person be indicted he receives a heavier penalty than if he had been proceeded against by summary conviction. The learned Attorney-General has made the traditional defence of the jury system and the right of people to be tried by a jury. Does not that apply also to the cyclist? Is he not as much one of "God's children" as the motorist?
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 30, to leave out "or twelve" and insert "twelve or fifteen".
It is necessary, in order to prescribe penalties under this Clause, to make reference to line 30 in Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and this Amendment effects that purpose.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, in page 8, line 31, to leave out "summary".
This is consequential to the Amendment in line 28.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 32, after "eleven", to insert "or fifteen".
It is necessary to prescribe penalties for the offence which is created, and the Amendment achieves that. The penalties proposed are the same as for reckless or dangerous driving of a pedal cycle namely, a fine not exceeding £30 on the first conviction and a fine not exceeding £30 or three months' imprisonment on a subsequent conviction.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, to leave out paragraph (b).
This is a consequential Amendment which removes the application to pedal cyclists of the procedure of indictment. Despite what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) says, the Govern-

ment view is that the procedure on indictment is too weighty for the type of offence provided for in the Clause.

Mr. Ede: I wonder if the right hon Gentleman could help with regard to the question I recently put to the Joint Under-Secretaryof State for the Home Department. Why is the cyclist not to be given the right to go before a jury, if he wishes?

Mr. Molson: I tried to give the right hon. Gentleman the Government's view upon the subject. There are not very heavy penaltles imposed for this offence. Although we agree that it is a sufficiently serious offence to be punishable, we think that it should be dealt with summarily and not on indictment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the Parliamentary Secretary now answer the question which I put? What are the penalties in the respective cases we have been discussing?

Mr. Molson: I have just read out what the penalty is under the Clause. I regret that at the moment I cannot refer to the Act of 1872 and indicate exactly what the penalties are under that Measure.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 43, to leave out "or twelve" and insert "twelve or fifteen".
For the purpose of determining what properly amounts to a second or subsequent convictions for offences under Sections 11, 12 and 15 it is, we think, desirable to keep motor and cycling offences separate. The Clause already provides for this in relation to offences under Sections 11 and 12. The Amendment achieves the same thing in relation to offences under Section 15.
Were it not for the Amendment, a motorist convicted under Section 15 might find himself being treated by the court as though his conviction were a second one, merely because he had previously been convicted under that Section of riding a bicycle while under the influence of drink. Conversely, the conviction of a cyclist under Section 15 might be taken as a second conviction if he had previously been convicted as a drunken motorist. We feel that that would be wrong. The purpose of the Amendment is to keep the two offences in separate categories.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(PROVISION OF PARKING PLACES WHERE CHARGES MADE.)

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, after "accommodation", to insert:
(whether open or covered)".
This Amendment is moved purely to fulfil an undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave in Standing Committee. It merely revises the definition of parking accommodation, and it is designed to meet a point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss).

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We raised this matter in Committee. It is a point which worried us. We did not know exactly what was meant by the words "parking accommodation". We are grateful to the Minister for meeting the point and making the position quite clear.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(AMOUNT OF CHARGES FOR PARKING AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.)

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 11, line 43, to leave out from the first "The" to "expiration" in line 44.
9.15 p.m. 
Perhaps I might explain that this and the next four Amendments are all relatively minor Amendments dealing with the question of parking meters, and putting right certain minor anomalies. Having explained the general point, perhaps I might explain them quickly as we go along.
The one you have now called, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, merely deals with a possible means of defence of somebody who had contravened the regulations; the purpose of it is to make it inappropriate to speak of measuring the time for which the motorist paid. Unless these words are omitted, a motorist charged with an offence under this provision might plead that the kind of meter being used did not comply with the description provided for in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 12, line 1, to leave out from "charge" to "of" in line 3 and to insert:
shall, if it is so provided in the order designating the parking place, be taken, unless the contrary is proved, to have occurred at such time as may be indicated in the prescribed manner by an apparatus.

This is related to the Amendment to Clause 13 in page 11, line 43. Again, it is really a minor amendment providing that a parking place order may provide that the expiration of the period for which payment, by the initial charge, was made is to be taken to have occurred at such time as may be indicated in the prescribed manner by the apparatus. In other words, it is again a matter of clarification.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 4, leave out "parking meters are" and insert "such apparatus is".
In line 7, leave out "parking meters" and insert "apparatus".
In line 8, leave out "parking meters are not" and insert "no such apparatus is".—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 12, line 14, at the end to insert:
(6) An order under this Act designating a parking place may prescribe that the following provisions shall have effect in relation thereto in substitution for the four last foregoing subsections, that is to say—


(a) the amount of the charge for a vehicle left in the parking place at any period of the day prescribed by the order shall be such amount as may be so prescribed, irrespective of the time for which the vehicle is left;
(b) the charge shall be payable either on the leaving of the vehicle or on its being taken away, as may be prescribed;
(c) if it is so prescribed, the charge shall be payable by the insertion of coins in an apparatus provided for the purpose of such description as may be prescribed, and, unless the contrary is proved, the charge shall be taken to have been paid or not to have been paid as may be indicated by the apparatus in the prescribed manner,


(7) Any such apparatus as is mentioned in subsections (4) or (6) of this section is hereinafter referred to as a parking meter.
Yesterday afternoon I described to the House as fully as I could how we contemplate that parking meters will be used for short-term parking. My right hon. Friend is anxious that arrangements for parking in London streets should be of as flexible a kind as possible. For that reason, he has set up a Committee, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Alec Samuels, to go into the whole question of parking that can be provided on the streets.
He has it in mind that there may be cases where it will be proper and desirable that there should be long-term parking. The effect of this Amendment is to make


it possible to introduce a different type of parking place from that equipped with parking meters, of which I spoke yesterday, where there will be no maximum time prescribed for parking and for which there will be a flat charge payable to an attendant, either when the vehicle is left in the parking place or at the time when it is taken away, or else payable through a machine, in the Bill referred to as "an apparatus".
Parking places of this type are referred to as long-term parking places, in contrast to the other type which are referred to as short-term parking places. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable parking places to be designated under the Bill, where vehicles may on payment of the requisite charge, wait for relatively long periods. The Amendment gives effect to an essential part of my right hon. Friend's parking policy for Central London, in which a balance has to be struck between the needs of short-term parkers and longer-term parkers. Some parking facilities are to be provided if possible on the highway for the latter at a relatively high cost. Vehicles will be able to wait at those long-term parking places for the whole day at a fee which it is intended will be comparable to the charge made for a similar period at a garage. I hope the Committee will agree that it is desirable while we are dealing with this Bill that arrangements shall be as flexible as possible for dealing with parking accommodation on the streets.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I wonder if the Joint Parliamentary-Secretary can explain this matter a little further? Yesterday the Minister took power to start experimental parking places. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave at some length an explanation of what he had in mind for the short-term parker. This is the first time we have had any reference to long-term parking except with the use of parking meters. In the schemes in London are the long-term parking facilities to be part of the experimental scheme with large-scale areas of short-term parking in Westminster, as has been suggested? I hope that the answer is in the affirmative because short-term parking with meters will not be fully effective unless the long-term parking is also provided.

Mr. Watkinson: The answer is in the affirmative and we would wish to give the expert Committee the maximum flexibility. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) may remember that in its terms of reference the Committee was to look at three types of parking, very short-term, ordinary short-term and longer-term parking. It may be that there will be some places on the streets which the Committee might recommend to me should be used for all-day parking—where there is a cul-de-sac or some road which does not carry any traffic. It may be the view of the Committee that those places should be used.

Sir P. Roberts: I welcome this new advance in regard to long-term parking which I think will meet a real need. I wish to ask a question on paragraph (c). It seems that the authority is moving the onus of proof to the person using the machine when the machine goes wrong. As I read the paragraph, it seems that if someone puts money into a meter and it does not register, unless it is proved to the contrary, the charge may be taken not to have been paid. In other words, an authority will be putting the burden of proof on the other side. That seems to be wrong. I thought it should be the other way round, because it will be practically impossible to prove that money has been put into a meter. I wonder why the Minister is choosing this method and not giving the benefit of the doubt to the person using the meter.

Mr. Molson: It is quite deliberately our intention that the burden of proof should be on the user of the meter. If that were not so, on every occasion when it was alleged that a motorist had outstayed his two hours he would allege that the parking meter had not worked properly and the burden would be on the local authority, or on my right hon. Friend, to prove that in that case the parking meter had worked correctly. It is manifest that in the vast majority of cases where a person becomes liable to an excess charge it is more likely that he has overstayed his welcome than that the meter was defective.

Sir P. Roberts: Not necessarily. Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 12, line 21, to leave out from "occasions)" to "and" in line 22.
This Amendment is to remove unnecessary control which the Bill as at present drafted would require me to exercise over the use of parking meters. It is not reasonable now for me to have powers to appoint persons to inspect and test the meters. It is better to leave that to the local authorities.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 24, leave out from "tested" to end of line 26.—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Clause 14.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR REGULATION OF PARKING PLACES.)

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 12, line 41, to leave out from "vehicle" to the end of line 42 and insert:
having been left in the parking place, remains there at the beginning of any".
The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that if a car is left in a parking place which operates by day and night, as many will, and is not taken away before the beginning of the next period of operation—is left, say, at a parking place in operation from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m., and is still there at 8 a.m.—it shall be treated as having been left there at the beginning of the second period of operation-8 a.m. In other words, the Amendment makes the driver liable for a second charge which he may otherwise escape.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 12, line 44, after "Act", to insert:
then without prejudice to any rights accrued or liabilities incurred in respect of anything previously done or omitted".
This Amendment is the reverse of the previous Amendment, and says that if the vehicle was left in a parking place during the previous period of operation the driver is thus liable for any charge in the previous period which he has not paid.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 13, line 3, to leave out "or" and insert:
and such an order as aforesaid, or an order or regulation containing such a designation".
There are already statutory provisions for parking places on the highway. Section 10 of the London Traffic Act and the Third Schedule to that Act, as amended by Section 63 of the London Passenger

Transport Act, 1933, enable the Minister to make regulations authorising parking places on highways inside the London traffic area. The provisions of other Acts enable the same thing to be done in the provinces. In this case no charge can be made for any parking on the highway which is authorised under those provisions.
Under this Bill for the first time it will be lawful to make a charge for parking on the highway. It may often be desirable, either permanently or temporarily, to transfer a parking place from one category to the other. It may be thought desirable to substitute for parking at one place on the highway free of charge a parking place according to the provisions of the Bill, where a payment will have to be made. Alternatively, it may prove convenient to provide at some place on the highway that parking should take place on payment only during a crowded period; for example, in the summer at a seaside resort, with free parking in the winter. If the procedures for making regulations and orders under the statutory provisions that I have already mentioned and under this Bill were entirely separate, the conversion of parking places of one kind into the other kind would involve a double procedure.
9.30 p.m. 
Under one of the statutes to which I have referred, and under the Bill, it would be necessary to have two separate orders. The Amendment provides that to suspend the use of parking places during any time when that place is in order as a parking place under the Bill, a single order may suffice.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 5, leave out "by the order" and insert "under this Act".—[Mr. Molson.]

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 13, line 9, at the end to insert:
(4) Such an order as aforesaid may exempt from the payment of any charge vehicles left in the parking place in such circumstances as may be specified in the order, subject however to any conditions so specified.
This is what I always remember as being what I called the Post Office van Amendment. It enables me, as respects short-term parking places, to leave a gap in the parking area where delivery vans Ind Post Office vans may properly come


and discharge or collect their loads without being subject to parking requirements. It is a very necessary provision.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I agree with the Minister that this is a very necessary Amendment. I think that we on this side of the House drew attention in Committee to the fact that it was necessary to provide loading bays, as it were, to have access to premises. I wonder whether the Amendment can be used to meet a case mentioned by one of my hon. Friends yesterday concerning invalid carriages. It was suggested that disabled persons, driving special cars or invalid carriages, should have special arrangements made for them, otherwise they could not get to their work or get about. Perhaps the Minister would see whether the Amendment applies to them.

Mr. Watkinson: I certainly will. Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 13, line 16, after "may", insert:
as respects parking places designated as aforesaid for which there is a prescribed standard period
In line 17, leave out "a parking place designated as aforesaid" and insert "any such parking place".—[Mr. Watkinson.]
In line 23, after "to", insert:
provide for the moving, in case of emergency, of vehicles left in a parking place, to".—[Mr. Molson.]

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page I3, line 43, at the end to insert:
(c) as respects any parking place for which there is a prescribed standard period, for preventing the postponement, by the insertion of additional coins in a parking meter, of the indication of the time after which the excess charge is incurred.
This is an Amendment to give effect to what I mentioned yesterday when describing the way that parking meters were expected to operate. I was then asked whether there would be anything to prevent someone who had put coins in the parking meter and had bought a period of two hours from inserting coins just before the termination of that period in order to avoid incurring the excess charge. I indicated that that would be illegal. The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent a motorist from so inserting additional coins just before the expiry of the time for which he had paid so as to

postpone the operation of the timeexpired indicator and thereby obtain additional parking time without incurring an excess charge. I understand that in the United States of America this is known as nickel or meter feeding. We desire to avoid that being done in this country.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15.—(OFFENCES RELATING TO PARKING PLACES.)

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 14, line 8, to leave out from the beginning to the second "or" and insert:
when it is due any charge payable under section thirteen of this Act.
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the Amendment to Clause 13, page 12, line 14, which provides for parking places at which long-term parking may take place.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, in page 14, line 25, at the end to insert:
(3) Where, in any proceedings in England or Wales for an offence under this section of failing to pay any charge, it is proved that the amount which has become due, or any part of that amount, has not been paid, the court shall order the payment of the sum not paid, and any sum ordered to be paid by virtue of this subsection shall be recoverable as a penalty.
The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that where a motorist is charged with failing to pay any charge which he should have paid that is to say, the initial or the excess charge in relation to short-term parking places—and it is proved that the charge should have been paid and was not paid, the same court which finds him guilty of the offence of failing to pay the amount, is required to order the payment, in addition to any fine, of the sum which has not been paid, and the sum shall be recoverable as a penalty.
This Amendment, in effect, will eliminate the necessity for two separate court proceedings. The motorist who has left his vehicle in a parking place without paying the appropriate charge is guilty of an offence, but his conviction in a magistrates' court will still leave due from him the charge which he did not pay originally, and the local authority responsible for administering the parking place would, unless this Amendment were made, have to take separate proceedings in the county court to recover the charge,


which would involve additional work falling on it and on the attendants. This Amendment, in effect, makes two proceedings one.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 14, line 26, to leave out subsection (3).
This Amendment is purely consequential, necessitated by the Amendment to Clause 13, page 12, line 1.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 34, leave out from "place" to "being" in line 35.—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Clause I6.—(PARKING PLACES: FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page I5, line 5, to leave out:
With the consent of the Minister.
I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House to take them together, but all the Amendments to Clause 16—there are five of them—deal with one quite necessary but, I think. non-controversial point. It is that we have not yet had very much experience of parking meters. Originally, the Bill was drawn rather too tightly and gave the local authorities very little scope as to what they could do with the sums which they had collected from parking meters from year to year. For example, they were not able to carry them over.
The purpose of these Amendments is to enable the local authorities to carry forward any amounts in the prescribed accounts to the next financial year and apply them to any prescribed purposes in that financial year without my consent. In other words, they really give the local authorities more power within a reasonable framework to decide how they carry forward moneys which they have collected from the parking meters. Though I will certainly answer any detailed comments which any hon. Member wishes to make, I hope the Amendments may be dealt with formally.

Sir P. Roberts: May I ask one question on detail? By extending the period to four years, will that make any difference to the accountability or the public knowledge of the accounts year by year of the local authorities?

Mr. Watkinson: No.

Sir P. Roberts: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Before we pass from the last of the detailed Amendments which have been before the House concerning parking meters, I should like to say that we have had a very large number and they have taken a considerable time. I think it is appropriate to make the comment that it is quite clear that, when these provisions were originally put in the Bill, they had not been thought out half as wcll as they ought to have been before they came before the House. We have now had to amend these provisions in great detail and at great length. There have been second thoughts, and I am very glad that there have been, and that a number of authorities and people have been consulted. Neverthelss, the first thoughts should have been far more complete than they were, and we ought not to have had to make these innumerable detailed Amendments at this stage of the Bill. I think that comment should be made, because it expresses the view of my hon. Friends on this side.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 15, line 9, at end insert:
but shall not be carried forward from one quadrennial period to another without the consent of the Minister".
In line 18, at end insert:
and whether in the open or under cover".
In line 24, at end insert:
and whether in the open or under cover".
In line 27, at end insert:
(5) "Quadrennial period" means, in relation to a local authority, a period beginning with the date when the local authority first keep the account required by subsection (1) of this section and ending with the fourth complete financial year after that date, or a period of four years beginning immediately after the expiration of a quadrennial period.—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Clause 18.—(PENALTIES AND DISQUALIFICATIONS.)

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in line 32, to leave out "section ten (speeding)".
Clause 18, as originally drafted, contained a provision to increase the maximum fine for exceeding the speed limit from £20 to £30, and to make it possible for disqualification to be imposed on a second offence for speeding. It was not in my time, but I understand that this proposal came under heavy criticism in


the Standing Committee, and I believe was eventually negatived. The Amendment, therefore, quite properly deletes the reference to speeding in this Clause, and is, therefore, a consequence of the Standing Committee decision not to increase penalties for exceeding the speed limit. It implements a pledge which I understand was given at that time.

Mr. Speaker: The following Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) and the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) will fall if this Amendment is carried, but it could be discussed with this one.

Mr. MacColl: I share with the Minister ignorance about what happened upstairs in the Standing Committee, and therefore he and I start to look at this matter dispassionately and objectively, without any knowledge of what happened before. I quite agree that as these words are suspended in the Bill and have no proper function they ought, from the point of view of the drafting, to be deleted.
9.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), a very distinguished official of the Magistrates' Association, my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) and I tabled an Amendment to provide for disqualification in the event of a conviction for speeding. That seemed to be a more satisfactory way of rounding off the matter than leaving these words.
I have listened to a fair amount of discussion on the Report stage, and it has seemed to me that the tenor of the discusion has been that, by and large, people take these offences a little too lightly and feel that it is too easy to get off in front of a jury, that magistrates are a little too reluctant to impose adequate sentences, and that, on the whole, one of the most effective ways of dealing with motoring offences is by imposing periods of disqualification.
The exemption of speeding from disqualification for the first two offences seems to me to be a hangover from oldfashioned ideas about motoring. There was a time when people took considerable pride in the number of convictions that they had for speeding. It was regarded as a sign of the speed and efficiency of one's car and the skill and

energy of one's driving to have convictions. A great deal of satisfaction was derived from having a collection of the primaries that one had won. These days the appalling figures for road accidents hang like a cloud over all our discussions and we worry continually about how to tackle the problem. Against the modern background of the situation on the roads, the point of view which I have been describing is one which ought to be resolutely stamped upon.
If hon. Members are serious about this and really feel that the purpose of the Bill is to strengthen and tighten the powers of the courts in relation to traffic offences, surely here is a means of bringing that about by allowing discretionary disqualification. Much has been said about the dangers of mandatory orders about disqualification and the fact that they have sometimes led to the dismissal of a case where there ought to have been a conviction. My hon. Firends and I are not suggesting that there should be a mandatory direction to disqualify. What we say is that power should be given to magistrates to impose disqualification, for, after all, it is the magistrates who hear the evidence and they might wish to follow this course when confronted by a particularly gross and flagrant type of case.
Prevention is what matters. It is more important to stop accidents than to deal with them after they have taken place. Stopping speeding is prevention. After there has been an accident, people sit around and argue about how it happened. It is too late. One may then bring terrific charges and indictments of reckless driving, and so on, but all that will not bring to life the person who has been killed. The time to tackle the problem is before the incident takes place which leads to a charge.
One thing that the House ought to be anxious to make clear is that in this day and age speeding is reckless and ought to be regarded as a criminal action rather than a genial kind of escapade which is winked at as being fairly harmless.
I am disappointed and sorry that the Government seek to make this deletion from the Bill. My hon. Friends and I in this matter speak for many magistrates in the Council of the Magistrates' Association. We are sorry this has happened and regret that our Amendment will not come before the House

Mr. Ede: I want to support the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for giving the magistrates some discretion in this matter. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) who earlier today said that the one thing which impresses people in a court is the obvious effect which they find that a short period of suspension has on the person who has been convicted. I am certain that it is the punishment which is most felt. For many people, the kind of fine imposed for speeding is almost immaterial, and it is very rarely that the motorist feels any punishment of that kind.
I object to it being made mandatory that a suspension must follow a conviction. Of course, at present the power to suspend on the third or subsequent conviction is in the discretion of the magistrate, but the fact that it exists generally has a pretty powerful effect on the person who regards himself as unfortunate enough to have been caught out three times. It is the only punishment which has any effect on a motorist who keeps his car mainly for pleasure purposes, or on rich people who use a car for business purposes. If the Minister gave magistrates this discretion, it would be a very valuable reinforcement of their powers and would have a far greater effect in reducing the number of offences than anything else in the Bill.

Mr. Molson: The Amendment is somewhat in line with the original thinking of my Department. When introduced, the Bill provided for increasing the penalties for speeding. The present law provides that disqualification for an offence under Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, cannot be ordered in the case of a first or second offence. The Amendment would stiffen the law by authorising courts to disqualify a convicted offender for up to one month for the first offence and three months for a second or subsequent offence.
As originally introduced, the Bill contained a provision making it possible for a court to disqualify for a second offence under Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, provided that the lapse of time between the first and second offences was three years or less. We did not contemplate disqualification for a first offence. Even those more moderate

proposals put forward by the Government did not meet with approval in Committee upstairs. This was no party matter and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance at an early stage indicated that this was a matter on which the Government were prepared to accept the guidance of the Committee and the Amendment which my right hon. Friend has moved gives effect to what we understood to be the general view of the Committee. I therefore hope that the House will not go against the view expressed after a very full and long debate in Standing Committee.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to intervene, possibly to express—as he hoped—a view which would support his action and disagree with the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). In this matter, as in all these matters affecting road safety, we have spoken our individual views without party considerations, and upon many matters there has been disagreement among Members on our side of the House as well as upon the other.
I fully appreciate the fact that there are some Members—we have heard their voices tonight—who believe that it would be desirable, and would reduce the number of accidents, if disqualification were permitted in respect of those who were convicted for exceeding the speed limit either upon the first or second occasion. We discussed this matter at length in Committee, and it was certainly my view that such a provision might act exceedingly harshly and unfairly upon persons in very many cases. The attitudes of magistrates in different parts of the country might vary, and the effect it would have upon the offence of exceeding the speed limit would be negligible.
Many of us came to the conclusion that, on balance, it would not be wise, or serve any useful purpose—and might, indeed, create very real difficulties and unfairness—if we did as suggested in the Amendment. For that reason I and many of my colleagues take a different


view from that which has been expressed this evening, and we support the view put forward by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Isaacs: I am completely opposed to any suspension for a first offence of speeding, but I think that we should have power to act further. In the court where I sit we had 18 cases of speeding today. In respect of one offender it was his third offence within two years. For his first offence he was fined £2 and for his second £5—although in my court the fine in respect of a second offence is rarely more than £3—and we had toconsider the question whether we had power to suspend his licence. This offender did not even trouble to turn up. He forwarded his licence and pleaded guilty.
A court should be given power to suspend a licence after a second offence, if necessary. The offence of speeding varies according to circumstances. Sometimes a car travelling at 40 miles an hour—10 miles above the limit—may be doing so upon a road which a police officer says was dry, where the traffic was light, and there was no danger, but in another case the police officer may say that visibility was poor, the road surface was wet, and there was a lot of traffic about. Discretion in these matters must be left with the magistrates. I am convinced that a suspension for a month will stop more speeding than a fine of £10.

Mr. Watkinson: I am in a somewhat difficult position, because I was not in the Committee at the relevant time. However, my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I have gone through the matter very carefully, and I have studied the discussion which took place. I think that the decision which I announced in moving the Amendment to delete Section 10 of the principal Act fairly reflects the majority opinion in Committee. Although I am deeply conscious that other hon. Members hold different views. I feel it is only right, at this stage, for the Government to stick to what was the majority decision in Committee.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause I9.—(DURATION OF DRIVING DISQUALIFICATIONS.)

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 17, line 4, to leave out "In calculating" and insert:
(1) No application shall be made under subsection (3) of section seven of the Act of 1930 for the removal of a disqualification before the expiration of whichever is relevant of the following periods from the date of the conviction, or order made in consequence of a conviction, by virtue of which the disqualification was imposed, that is to say—

(a) six months, if the disqualification is for less than a year,
(b) one half of the period of the disqualification, if it is for less than six years but not less than a year,
(c) three years, in any other case.

(2) In determining the expiration of.
The purpose of this Amendment is that the question of limited disqualification should be slightly amended, and the emendation, as I understand it, is that there should be a change in the period when a motorist is entitled to come back and ask for the cancellation of the suspension. I believe that it was a change made to meet the views of the Committee, and I hope, therefore, that the House will accept it without further debate.

Mr. Isaacs: I thank the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for this Amendment. I submitted an Amendment in Committee which had the same purpose, but the present Amendment has been drafted in a much more satisfactory fashion, and I think that it will be very useful. I express my appreciation of their activity.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 6, leave out from "or" to "a" in line 7 and insert:
after which under the last foregoing subsection".

Clause 24.—(EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC SCHEMES IN LONDON.)

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 19, line 26, after "constable", to insert:
or any person acting as aforesaid".
If it will give any satisfaction to hon. Members opposite, I will gladly admit that this was an oversight at the time when the Bill was being drafted. The effect is to make line 26 of subsection (3) of this Clause correspond quite fully and accurately with lines 18 and 19 of the


same subsection. Clauses 25 and 26 contain similar provisions in respect of traffic signs placed either by a constable or any other person acting on police instructions. As this is a drafting Amendment designed to repair an admission, for which I would like to apologise to the House, I hope that the House will be pleased to accept it.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33.—(CONSTITUTION OF LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.)

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) is not necessary because that emendation will be done automatically if the second Amendment in the hon. and learned Gentleman's name is accepted.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 26, line 34, at the end to add:
One—By the Minister, after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit, to represent the interests of persons using bicycles and tricycles, not being motor vehicles, within the London Traffic Area.
This Amendment will enable me, after consultation with the appropriate bodies, to appoint a member to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee to represent the interests of bicyclists and tricyclists. During the Committee stage an Amendment was moved which would authorise the Minister to appoint two members. My predecessor gave an undertaking that he would consider that. I have therefore moved this Amendment to appoint a bicyclist or a tricyclist to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 26, line 34. at the end to insert:
and
(ii) in paragraph I, for the word 'One'. where last occurring, there shall be substituted the word ' Two ' and at the end of the said paragraph there shall be added the words `Provided that of the two last mentioned members one shall be a taxi-cab driver, working as such '".
This is an addition rather than an Amendment. I am quite sure that his incomparable knowledge of London traffic must make the presence of a working taxicab driver on the London

and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee of very great value. These men have a useful contribution to make. That is why the Amendment has been put down in this form. We want a working taxicab driver on that body because of his working knowledge. The Amendment is not moved on behalf of any sectional interest, because the contribution which these men would make to the deliberations of the Committee would benefit the whole of the traffic community in London, and in central London in particular.
I am sure that hon. Members would have difficulty in finding a person who knows more about London traffic and its problems—and those are the problems with which that Committee has to deal—than a London taxicab driver. For that reason I hope that the Minister will be good enough to accept the Amendment.

Mr. McLeavy: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is evident that London taxicab drivers. with their special knowledge of all London's traffic problems, could with advantage be given representation upon the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. It would be of extreme value to the Committee to have at first hand the knowledge and experience of a working taxicab driver. They would get at first hand the full value of the experience of such a man and of his colleagues.
That Committee has been very important in the past. With the new proposals in the Bill, including those dealing with parking facilities and the diversion of traffic, the Committee will be even more important. It will be asked by the Minister for its advice on these matters. It seems to me more important than ever that the expert knowledge of the men of the roads, as I would call these working taxicab drivers, should be available to the Committee and that they should have direct representation on it.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that it would be of great value to the Committee were a taxicab driver appointed as a member. This proposal will, I am sure, be received with pleasure by the taxicab drivers, who take great pride in their work. It would be an acknowledgment of the experience which they could bring to the deliberations of the


Advisory Committee, and also of the great service which these men contribute to dealing with the London traffic problems.

Mr. Molson: One naturally regards this Amendment with sympathy in view of the degree of our obligation to taxicab drivers. We have been tremendously impressed with their quite unrivalled knowledge of London and its traffic problems. But listening to the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, one would suppose that at present taxicab drivers were completely unrepresented on the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. The intention of this Amendment is to increase the representation of the taxicab industry from one to two, and to ensure that at least one of these representatives should be a working taxicab driver.
We must bear in mind that if this very important Advisory Committee is to remain the extremely effective and efficient body that it is at present, it must not be too large in numbers. Section 1 of the London Traffic Act, 1924, as amended by Section 58 of the London Passenger Transport Act, I933, and the Twelfth Schedule thereto, provides that the Minister shall appoint one member to the Committee, after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit, to represent the interests of the taxicab industry within the London traffic area. Therefore, the taxicab industry as a whole is at present adequately represented on the Committee, and there is nothing to prevent the interests consulted by the Minister from indicating that a taxicab driver should be appointed, if they so desire.
When the Committee was last reconstituted, in 1954, the bodies consulted by the Minister were the London Motor Cab Proprietors' Association, the Taxicab Trade, which is a trade journal, and the Motor Cab Owner-Drivers Association. The Secretary of the London Motor Cab Proprietors' Association was reappointed. He has represented these interests on the Committee since 1933, and there is every reason to regard him as a most admirable representative of the industry.
Regarding employed drivers, Section 1 of the London Traffic Act, I924, as

amended by subsequent legislation, also provides for the Minister of Labour and National Service to appoint five members to the Committee, after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit, to represent the interests of labour engaged in the transport industry within the London traffic area. The five members at present appointed by the Minister are officers of the following trade unions: the Transport and General Workers' Union, who have two representatives, the National Union of Railway men, the London Transport Joint Trades Committee Electrical Trades Union, and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association.
10.15 p.m.
There is no reason why any particular aspect affecting the labour side of the taxicab trade could not be dealt with by those representatives. There is, therefore, in our view no justification from any point of view for adding to the Committee a second member to represent taxicab interests in general or in any particular aspect. In view of the representation which now exists and of the undesirability of continuing to increase the size of this very efficient and hard-worked body, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Oliver: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Minister has power now, if he wishes to exercise it, to put a working taxi man on to that body? I took down the right hon. Gentleman's words as quickly as I could. If he has that power—and that is precisely what I hope he has—I should like him to put on the Advisory Committee, not a representative of the industry, who may or may not know a great deal of the traffic problems of London today, but someone who, from his experience as a working taxi driver. would be unrivalled for his knowledge. We desire that the Committee shall be made as effective as possible. If the Minister has power, I wish he would exercise it to fulfil the intention of the Clause.

Mr. Molson: What I indicated was that there are representatives of these trade unions. These trade unions are consulted about who should be put on the Committee. Obviously the Transport and General Workers' Union and the other transport unions are able to represent transport


workers in the area, who include taxi drivers and all other kinds of drivers as well.

Mr. Oliver: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Sixth Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 36, line 47, to leave out sub-paragraph (1).
This Amendment is necessary to implement the decision taken not to increase the penalties for exceeding the speed limit.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 37, line 6, leave out "said Act" and insert "Act of 1930".—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 37, line 42, at the end to insert:
6. In section eleven of the Act of 1930, in subsection (4) (which relates to the disqualification of persons aiding or abetting offences under that section), for the word "and" there shall be substituted the 'words "then unless" and after the word "deemed" there shall be inserted the word "not".
This Amendment is proposed in consequence of the Government new Clause dealing with offences against Section 35 of the Act of 1930. It is a drafting and clarification in order to place beyond doubt the discretion of the court.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 38. line 3, at the end to insert:
or damage is caused to any notice, refuge, light, beacon or other object placed on or near a highway for the purpose of securing road safety, regulating road traffic or facilitating the passage of pedestrians".
Apparently this Amendment is the last of the "non-drafters". I submit the Amendment to the House although I have had a very useful letter from the Parliamentary Secretary explaining the Government point of view. Every motorist from time to time comes across a refuge which has been broken down, a signpost which has been knocked over, or a beacon which has been displaced. Those of us who travel a good deal at night, as those of us do who attend the House—except those who do not stay too late—often find that a beacon is unlit because of some damage which has been

caused. It seems to me that the motorist responsible should at least be called upon to stop and to report that he has done the damage. If he knows a dog over or injures a dog he has to report; but he can damage a sign which might cause danger to other road users and not be called upon to report.
In addition, according to the Bill, these motorists are interfering with the rights of the highway authorities, because, according to one Clause we have dealt with, it is the responsibility of highway authorities to secure the removal of signs. These motorists are doing it for them.
In this case, it is not just a question of damage to property. I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's point made earlier, that this Amendment seems to differentiate between one kind of property and another. Most people put up with their gates being damaged by a motorist reversing into their driveway, damaging the gates and then driving off. That is personal, private property, and neither this nor any other Bill gives them any redress. But in this case signs concerned with public safety are involved. I do not think it is unnecessarily unreasonable to call upon a motorist who does damage a sign put up for the safety of people using the roads, and for pedestrians, at least to report that damage to the police station.
I therefore beg to move the Amendment, and I hope that even at this late stage we may find we can have some accommodation upon it.

Mr. Deedes: I think that in the earlier proceedings my predecessor gave the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) an undertaking that this matter should be looked into. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, by itself, is in no way objectionable, but there is this to be said about it—which I am not sure he has appreciated—that it involves the selection, for reporting purposes, of damage to a particular kind of public property. It involves the selection of one piece of public property, and it would not be very easy, if this Amendment were accepted, to resist the claim that similar arrangements ought to apply to other types of public property, and even to private property. The selection of this particular piece of property would undoubtedly lead to that demand.
The second and perhaps even more important objection is this. The routine of recording and reporting on road accidents, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, already imposes a fairly heavy burden upon the police. We are unwilling to add to this burden in any particular, unless there are the most cogent reasons for so doing.
I do not think that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be to provide much information of great value bearing upon road safety. Of course, the more information we can get about road accidents, the better; but we have to weigh the quantity of information we get, and the value of it, against the over-loading of the police with minor and perhaps less important duties than some others for which they are already responsible. Although we recognise that Section 22, as it stands, is by no means comprehensive and is far from perfect, it is with a view to balancing the need for information against the need for not overloading the police that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to accept what I have said and not press his Amendment.

Mr. Isaacs: I still think there is a great deal of value in the Amendment I have moved. However, in the spirit of all our discussion and debate on this Bill, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 38, line 47, at the end to insert:
13.—(l) In section sixty-eight of the Act of 1930, in subsection (1). in the proviso to subsection (2) and in subsection (4), after the words "conditions as to fitness" there shall be inserted the words "or such of those conditions as are not dispensed with by an order of the Minister for the time being in force".
(2) After the said subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsections:—
(1A) An order dispensing with any of the prescribed conditions as to fitness—


(a) shall not be made except where it appears to the Minister expedient so to do for the purpose of the making of tests or trials of a vehicle or its equipment;
(b) shall specify the period for which the order is to continue in force;
(c) may contain, or authorise the imposition of, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions relating to the construction,

equipment or use of the vehicle as respect which the order is made,


and any such order as aforesaid may be varied or revoked by the Minister.
(la) Where any such order as aforesaid is revoked or otherwise ceases to have effect any certificate of fitness issued by virtue of the order shall cease to be a force.
(1c) Where a certificate of fitness is issued by virtue of such an order as aforesaid and relates to a vehicle as respects which am previous certificate of fitness is in force, the previous certificate shall thereupon cease to be in force.
(3) In subsection (3) of the said section sixty eight after the word "being" there shall be inserted the words "except in the case of a certificate granted by virtue of an order dispensing with any of the prescribed conditions of fitness".
I can explain this Amendment quite simply by saying that it is proposed merely to try to help the export trade in large passenger-carrying vehicles such a! buses, by allowing buses of a non-standard width and length to be used, purely for experimental and testing purposes, on the roads of this country. I give the assurance that these powers will be used only for that purpose, and will be used most sparingly. But I am advised that they art essential to enable British commercial vehicle manufacturers to make certain essential tests on the roads of this country
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 39, line 46, to leave out "Notwithstanding anything" and insert "Nothing".
I trust that the House will accept my word that this is purely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 39, line 48, after "Act)" to insert "shall affect the institution of".
This Amendment is consequential or the Amendment which the House has just agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In pap 39, line 50, leave out "may in England be instituted".—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 41, to leave out lines 18 to 24.
This Amendment is necessitated by decision of the Standing Committee Clause 18, as originally drafted, contained a provision which made it obligatory a a person, after a period of disqualification


from driving, to take driving tests before he or she could resume driving with a substantive licence. That proposal was strongly criticised in the Standing Committee, and was withdrawn. This Amendment implements the withdrawal.
Amendment agreed to

Orders of the Day — Seventh Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Amendment made: In page 42, line 30, at end insert:


53 &amp; 54 Vict. c. 59
The Public Health Actsc Amendment Act, 1890.
In section thirty-nine, the words "or places of refuge" and the words from "or for the purpose" to the end of the section.—[Mr. Molson.]

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 42, line 35, at the end to insert:


3 Edw. 7. c. 33.
The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903.
In section fourteen, the words "or may provide island platforms for pedestrians".


This addition to the Seventh Schedule is consequential on section (1) of the new Clause which deals with dual carriageways, roundabouts and street refuges.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page line 36, column 3, leave out from first "In" to "in" in line 37 and insert:
section six, in subsection (1), the proviso; in section seven, in subsection (3), the words from 'at any time' to 'to time'; in section eight, in subsection (6), the second paragraph". —[Mr. Molson.]
In page 43, line 6, column 3, after "paragraph", insert:
in section thirty-five, in subsection (2), the words from 'and a person convicted' to the end of the subsection".—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 43, line 10, column 3, after "end", to insert:

in section fifty-five, the words from 'erect' to 'road, and'; in section fifty-seven, in subsection (2), the words 'places of refuge in roads, and'".
This addition to the Seventh Schedule is consequent upon subsection (7) of the Government new Clause dealing with dual carriageways, roundabouts and street refuges moved earlier in the proceedings on Report.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in line 10, column 3, after "end", to insert:
in section forty-eight, in subsection (4). the proviso and in subsection (9) the words from Part ' to the third this '".
This Amendment is consequent on the new Clause relating to traffic signs.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 43, line 31, column 3, after "(6)",insert "(8)".—[Mr. Molson.]

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 43, line 51, at the end to add:

12, 13 &amp; 14 Geo. 6, c. 97.
The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.
In section ninety three, subsection (7).


14 Geo. 6.c. 24.
The Highways (Provision of Cattle Grids Act, 1950.
In section six, sub-section (2) and subsection (3) so far as it relates to highway authorities


14 Geo. 6. c. 39.
The Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950.
In section eight, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), the words "and lighted", the word "general" and the words "subsection (1) of "

I apologise to the House for saying again that this Amendment is consequent on the introduction of the new Clause relating to traffic signs.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT SURPLUS STOCKS (DISPOSAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: From the outset I have asked for a Select Committee to be set up to 'investigate thoroughly the Government surplus sales racket, and, despite the Prime Minister's statement of 16th May, I still believe that this should be done. I submit that the story behind Government surplus sales underlines the saying that truth is stranger than fiction. It is such a fantastic story that one has to be careful about disclosing some facts because most people would not believe that such things could happen in this country. The profits have been and still are, I submit, so high that it has attracted to the business masters of corruption and bribery, men who because of their greed would not rule out even worse tactics in order to get their way.
Until the Prime Minister made his statement on 16th May, there was not the slightest sign that any useful lesson had been learned from costly experience. In fact, up till then it looked as if the surplus sales racket had become part of the British way of life and that the game of skinning the taxpayer in this respect was to go merrily along.
I appreciate how difficult it is for Ministers, owing to their many duties and arduous work, to get down to the details of an intricate problem of this sort, and I also appreciate that these undesirable practices have gone on whatever the colour of the Government in power. Therefore, it is no part of my case to make any party point at all. But it is, I submit, a matter of the greatest importance to the taxpayers who expect us in this House to profit from the experiences of the past and to see that they at least get a square deal.
The eight-page Report of the Committee set up by the Prime Minister under the chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is undoubtedly a big step forward and in the right direction. I would say that it is a remarkable Report in view of the evidence that con-

siderable activity was going on and of the pulling of wool over the eyes of Ministers of several Departments. There is much evidence to this effect which is clearly revealed in many of the Answers that I and other hon. Members have received to Questions in recent months.
The five main recommendations of the Report of which the Prime Minister gave details on 16th May missed out, as I was afraid they would in view of the way that the investigations were conducted, the most important point of all. The recommendations made are in connection with getting greater efficiency and more economies in the sales of surplus goods.
I submit, too, that the need for many to do is to look into the purchasing merits of the various Government Departments which eventually result in huge stocks being declared surplus. Some of the practices being followed were very disturbing and were going ahead as though a war was in progress and it was vital to corner supplies whether or not they would ever be required. I submit that in 1956 it is time that we changed some of these practices.
I submit too, that the need for many Government Departments to carry huge stocks is out of date largely, because many manufacturers carry big stocks and many of the jobs for which these goods are required are not life and death matters anyway. So I feel that the carrying of large stocks is out of date in many respects and it is upon that aspect of this business of Government purchases and of subsequent surplus stocks that the limelight should have been directed.
Nevertheless, it is a matter of great satisfaction to me that far-reaching changes are being made. I shall watch what happens with great interest. I did not expect the Prime Minister on 16th May to say much more than he did in his statement because it should be remembered that as recently as 1st March when I asked him a Question the Prime Minister said he was quite happy about what was going on. However, following a succession of Questions, a fortnight later he seemed to be of a different opinion and announced to the House that he was asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into the matter.
Several attempts have been made by both Tory and Labour Members to halt the waste, but to little account. It seems that the ganging-up of Ministers and civil servants to whitewash events has generally proved too much for the reformers. The game has gone on unhindered for far too long. One of the latest attempts to do something about it was by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). At the beginning of this year he sent a letter to a newspaper which received a good deal of publicity, and it seemed to shake the Ministry of Supply, because on 23rd January the Ministry sent out a Press statement. If the Minister of Supply had only known the facts he would not, I think, have approved of the sending out of that statement. No doubt it served a purpose for a time, but if the Minister had known the evil background of the Government surplus racket he would not have given his approval to the issuing of the statement.
I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for sending me a copy of the Press statement. It is a most interesting document. I have not time to deal with the whole of it. I should have liked to have had hours for this debate, not just half an hour. In replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, the document makes reference to the firm of Ernest Reid and Company and goes on to say:
No evidence of irregularities was disclosed.
It also says:
The whole case was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions who advised that the evidence available would not support a charge against any of he people concerned.
I should like a Select Committee to look into this document, because that firm was a most respectable firm until racketeer No. 1 took it over. Then, of course, it ceased to be just that. It may also be of interest that one of the chief officials of the Ministry of Supply Disposals Board happened to be a director of one of the firms connected with this racketeer No. 1. That may explain a lot of what happened about the sale of the vehicles to Ernest Reid and Company.
I would submit, too, that that Select Committee would have been interested in whether the police were anxious to get prosecutions in this case. Because,

as I say, truth is stranger than fiction, I felt it was essential to make use of a document known as Document No. 36, the information in which, I am sure, will indicate some of the reasons for my talking about the evil background to the Government surplus racket. This document states:
I would point out at this juncture that an enquiry is being conducted by this Department into the fraudulent and criminal activities of Mr. A. in connection with the purchase of ex-Government motor vehicles, and with him are involved the following shady individuals. …Mr. A. is known to have amassed a huge fortune during the past few years, is the registered owner of four aircraft. and employs his own pilots.
The Press statement mentions at the end that there have been some abusive attacks on individuals in the Ministry of Supply, and it goes on to say that he is a more or less discredited individual. I have a document here to indicate that the individual who served three years in prison was "framed," and I have also a copy of a written confession to that effect.
I make that point—I cannot develop it—because it has been the policy of one of the largest racketeers to make it very difficult for some of his colleagues to continue in business. In fact, he got rid of them, and the man who is discredited in this document happens to have been discredited in that way. I bring forward in support of my case another extract:
The enquiries made …in respect to the sending of the drugs to Mr. L. proved negative "—
This was another attempt at framing—
But we have been informed on good authority that Mr. A. was behind the villainy, and was instrumental in getting the drugs to Mr. L.
The purpose was then to put him away and get him into trouble.
Professor B informed us that although he was unable to be definite, he was of the opinion that the drugs had come from abroad. Our informants tell us that these drugs were dropped by parachute from one of Mr. A's aircraft in a lonely spot on Romney Marshes, where they were collected, brought to London, and sent by post from Leicester Square Post Office to Mr. L. Although it is most difficult to prove such a story, the source from whence it came is most reliable, and I have no reason to doubt its veracity.
The person responsible for this document was a highly placed officer at Scotland Yard. The other person who supported it is another highly placed officer


at Scotland Yard. Both of those officers left. Of course reasons have been given, but a Select Committee might find the real reasons. One thing it would find would be that, having written a document of this kind, the police officer who wrote it then became security officer for racketeer No. 1, and has served since then the useful purpose of seeing that racketeer No. 1 has not been put into prison long ago. The copy from which I am quoting was mentioned on the floor of the House, and the Home Secretary agreed that it is a copy of an authentic document.
Not having as much time as I should like, I want to come to a more up-to-date picture. By the end of June this year there will have been held under the auspices of the Ministry of Supply twenty-two Government surplus auction sales in various parts of the country. It seems to me that many of them flourish because of the belief that there is no need for Government buyers to worry about purchasing too much since, by this method, stocks can be got rid of at any time by such public auctions. There is plenty of evidence of articles being sold for no other reason than to make way for new stocks of the same articles. There is plenty of evidence also of the ordering of stocks from manufacturers of similar goods by other Government Departments as these sales take place.
Of course the Prime Minister showed by his answers to questions put to him that he, too, did not know much about the surplus goods racket, because the right hon. Gentleman said in his statement that he felt that the system was working properly. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his report says the same. I would recommend to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the other Ministers the query raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) when, on 16th May, he said to the Prime Minister:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that public anxiety arises from what are alleged to be the large profits made by people who bought surplus stocks at auction, and would he consider changing the system so as not always to dispose of stocks by auction, but by employing agents or some Government Department to find markets."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1956; Vol. 552. c. 2008.]

The Prime Minister stated that the Chancellor's report said that it was felt that to change the system drastically would cost too much money. If the Chancellor really knew how much money had been lost on these sales he might alter his opinion.
I have many examples, but I take next one which the Prime Minister selected in reply to a Question on 1st March, when he was asked if he would have an investigation into the business of the substantial stocks being sold at give-away prices. In a supplementary reply he said:
A great many Questions have been asked about paint. I found, on inquiry, that stores of paint ordered in 1953 were largely for our troops fighting in Korea: it was bituminous paint to protect tents against weather conditions during the fighting in Korea. Happily that fighting is now over. There are no other uses for that kind of paint anywhere else, except where there are hostilities. That being so, it is inevitable that some of the paint should be sold."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 1372.]
That was in reply to a Question about the huge quantities of paint being sold at Woolwich and Melton Mowbray, to a total of nearly 250,000 gallons. That was the information given to the Prime Minister to pull the wool over his eyes. The facts were that the only paint he mentioned totalled less than 5,000 gallons out of 250,000 gallons, and the Prime Minister gave the House to understand that that was the sort of paint being sold, whereas it was mostly paint which is the "bread and butter" paint being used in many other Government Departments.
Again, there was the answer given by the War Office, that since 1955 they have taken into stock 1,100,000 gallons of paint. A letter from the War Office says:
Except for special requirements the paint is ordered twice a year in bulk by types and the estimated requirement is based on average isues to users over the previous three years...
That seems to be a hit-and-miss business and, as a consequence, the War Office is now ordering far too much paint. That is one of the reasons why some is sold to make way for other stocks being brought in. A Select Committee looking into that matter would find a remarkable state of affairs. Since 1st January, 1955, no less than 1,100,000 gallons of paint have been ordered.
I could quote from the newspapers. The News Chronicle, on 17th February, said:
One manufacturer said: 'We find over a period that Service specifications for paint alter. It seems some-one high up must be changing his mind quite a bit.'
I suggest that instead of placing huge orders with one paint manufacturer, much of the paint requirements could be taken from stock. That would prevent any cornering of the market, and lower stocks could he kept, with consequent smaller losses. Since 1st January, 1954, the War Office disposed of well over 300,000 gallons of surplus paint, and during this period eight other Government Departments purchased 1,699,000 gallons.
Only one Government Department has bought any paint, and that was the Ministry of Works, who bought it after the row in the House started. The Post Office said that none of the paint was any good to them because it was a lower-grade ammunition paint. Is not that a case of pulling the wool over the Minister's eyes? We know that that paint was less than 40,000 gallons out of a total of 220.000 gallons. The Minister of Works bought 1,500 gallons of paint, which, he said, was the wrong colour. If he had looked at the catalogue he would not have had the wool pulled over his eyes.
Over 50,000 tyres, 23,000 inner tubes and 350 tons of tyre and tube scrap have been sold by the Ministry of Supply since 1st January, 1955.
The Minister of Supply says that most of them were too old to he used by the Services but that he was right to sell them to dealers. When told that it was unfair to put them on the roads, he answered that they were not, of course, going on the roads—they could be sold to farmers for use on tractors. What a stupid answer. It means that in selling surplus stores, Government Departments are either selling stuff which should have been sold earlier or stuff which is of no use to Government Departments and therefore should not be allowed to be used on the roads.
A Select Committee might also get an answer to the question of when hammers, pick shafts and the like become obsolete or why the Minister believes that horseshoe nails are obsolete. The only man with experience of selling horseshoe nails

for many years says that there have been no obsolete types for the last 50 years.
The Minister has mentioned with pride that the Parliamentary Secretary went to a sale at Woolwich and saw nothing wrong. I say with respect that the hon. Gentleman was an innocent at large. There is substantial evidence of these things. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) has first-class evidence of rackets and how, after a sale, people go into a cafÉ where there is a split-up and money is shared out. Surplus sales have been a thorough racket which has gone on for time almost unlimited. I wish that I had more time, but I have the evidence to support my case and there is much more that I could say. I am still hoping that a Select Committee will look into the matter and if not I do hope it will be possible to alter this state of affairs in consequence of the Prime Minister's statement.

10.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The House is familiar with the perseverance of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) in asking questions about the disposal of surplus stores. I know that it is very difficult for him, with so much information at his disposal, to confine his remarks to the short time available on the Adjournment, but in view of the sweeping and, in many cases, quite untrue allegations the hon. Member has made, he might have allowed me a little more than eight minutes in which to reply to some of his tendentious accusations.
The hon. Member has referred to the procedure for disposal of surplus stores, carefully built up over the last eleven years by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and his successors, as a "surplus racket." I assure him that it is certainly not a racket, except in his own jaundiced eyes.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: It is.

Mr. Erroll: It is time that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford learned that other people are capable of investigating matters as well as him. We who have taken a great deal of trouble in the various Government Departments
concerned to look into all these matters have arrived, quite correctly, at conclusions very different from his.
As to the vague charges of corruption by the curious Mr. A. and some transactions dealing with drugs parachuted into the country, those have nothing whatsoever to do with surplus stores.

Mrs. Braddock: They have.

Mr. Erroll: If they have, it is the duty of hon. Members opposite to make the information known, either to the Department concerned in the first place or to the police, instead of always telling the Press and then blaming us afterwards for putting out a Press statement to contradict their wild accusations.

Mr. Dodds: rose—

Mr. Erroll: I should like to have a few minutes to reply to the hon. Member's sweeping accusations. He had twenty-two minutes to make his accusations and he must surely be prepared to take a little in return. If the hon. Member has evidence of the kind he has attempted to describe to the House, it is his duty as an hon. Member to make it available to the Government Departments concerned. In answer to a number of Questions, which I have carefully studied in anticipation of this debate, there has been a request by different Ministers for this sort of information to be made available to them, but instead it is made available to Reynolds News and other recipients who fill the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford with a sense of grandiosity which I am afraid has spoiled some of the good points he has raised from time to time on this subject.
In the five minutes which remain I should like to answer some of the other points which the hon. Member made and which have been raised by other hon. Members in the last few weeks. I wish, first, to make plain the responsibility of the Ministry of Supply in this matter of stores disposal. The statement which the Prime Minister has already circulated touches upon many aspects of the matter and sets out general conclusions which have emerged from the inquiry he called for in which the Service Departments, the Ministry of Supply and the Treasury participated. I suggest that any fair minded hon. Member who reads the statement

which was published will agree that there is no need whatever for the Select Committee which the hon. Member has been calling for this evening.
The Ministry of Supply's responsibility on the disposals side is limited to the disposal of surplus stores for the War Office and to the disposal of certain other stores, such as tyres, machine tools and vehicles for a number of Departments. We do sell a few Air Ministry and Admiralty stores, but these two Departments dispose of the bulk of their surpluses under their own arrangements. The Ministry of Supply has a purely executive responsibility to sell those stores which the disposing Department has certified as surplus to requirements. The Ministry of Supply also buys stores for the Service Departments, but only in accordance with stated requirements for which the Service Departments have the normal financial authority. I can assure the hon. Member that the Service Departments take care that they do not order stores in excess of reasonable forecastable requirements or which are currently being declared as surplus.
Nevertheless, Departments must always guard against the risks of over-procurement and so, as the Prime Minister stated, the Ministry of Defence is co-ordinating a general examination by the Service Departments, the Ministry of Supply and the Treasury of their procurement policy and procedure. The hon. Member said it was out of date to carry large stocks. I agree, and that is why in many cases we are disposing of them. They are wartime surpluses which have been held as what we might call "in case stores". Many of the examples which the hon. Member quoted at the end of his remarks are stores which were wartime stocks for which there is no foreseeable purpose, and surely it is the right policy to dispose of those stocks. The hon. Member made serious allegations against our methods of disposal, and particularly our auction sales. He referred to the possibility of alternative methods. Perhaps he does not realise that currently two-thirds of the surplus stores are sold by tender and not by auction—

Mr. Dodds: No.

Mr. Erroll: —and we adopt the tender method where that is considered to be better. We decide that in the light of experience. Heavy specialised machinery,
large quantities of textiles and similar lots are sold by tender. Sales by auction on the other hand are much more appropriate where we desire to interest as wide a range of potential buyers as possible and when the stores are of a miscellaneous type, and in any condition from shop soiled to beyond economic repair. One further advantage of selling by auction is that freelance buyers can find new uses for old stores, which results in higher bidding than would be the case if the same goods were offered only by tender. Auction sales have the further advantage of speedy disposal and quick collection of the money realised. This is especially important at a period like the present when surpluses are coming forward regularly and must be disposed of promptly if Army depots are to be cleared.
I wish particularly to refer to the so called buyers' rings, because we do take steps, which I do not propose to publicise, to counter the danger to buyers from dealers' rings. It is also open to anyone to submit a bid in writing to the auctioneer and thus counter any form of "ganging up" and splitting the "swag" in cafes, as the hon. Member alleged. I might add that under the Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Act, 1927, it is an offence to form rings at auction sales; and since the hon. Member seems to know so much

about these allegedly shady transactions, I would remind him once again that if he has any evidence, it is his duty to disclose it to the proper authorities. I very much hope that he will do so.
On the other point regarding the disposals of paint, his case is considerably exaggerated and the Prime Minister's statements were not incorrect as he alleged. The bituminous paint for Korea, which he quoted, the Prime Minister mentioned by way of illustration, and the hon. Member has sought to puff up a supplementary answer intended to be helpful to him into some extraordinary further allegation of inefficiency on the part of the Government.

Mr. Dodds: It was 5,000 gallons out of a quarter-of-a-million.

Mr. Erroll: He also referred to 40,000 gallons of ammunition paint. The point he fails to realise is that colour also enters into the different types of paint where they can be usefully purchased by other Departments.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at one minute past Eleven o'clock.